DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.197 of 2016
Date of institution: 11.04.2016 Date of decision : 27.06.2017
Harpreet Kaur daughter of Bhupinder Singh, resident of House No.2158, Sector 71, Mohali.
….Complainant
Versus
1. Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560055.
2. Managing Director, Oleva, Satkap Ventures, A-2269, Road No.4, Street No.7, 2nd Floor, Mahipalpur Extn. Behind Goodluck Hotel, Delhi-110057.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Ms. Apurva Rathee, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Harpreet Kaur had filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant purchased Oleva Women’s Denim Look Jeggings – Combo of 4 – OVD 2017 from the website of OP No.1 vide order dated 19.02.2016. However, when the goods were delivered to the complainant at her residence, it was found that the goods were not as had been described on the website of OP No.2 as two of the four jeggings from the set were not of appropriate size as they were very small. The complainant immediately made a request on the website of the OP No.1. However, OP No.2 did not respond to the request and the complainant again made a request for return of the product and refund of the price to OP No.1 on 28.02.2016. OP No.2 sent reply on 29.02.2016 through e-mail to the complainant by apologizing for inconvenience and informed the complainant that they cannot arrange pick up executive because it is not their end and they are Oleva and not Amazon and asked the complainant to contact Amazon. Upon receipt of this reply, the complainant contacted Amzon.in on 29.02.2016. OP No.1 sent reply to the complainant vide e-mail dated 29.02.2016 asking her to file A to Z guarantee claim on their website for receiving an earlier refund. In pursuance to this e-mail the complainant filed A to Z Guarantee claim on 29.02.2016. The OP No.1 confirmed receipt of claim of the complainant vide e-mail dated 29.02.2016 and the complainant was informed that return pick up service is not available for her purchase and that she would have to return the product herself and the product should be new and unopened. The complainant was further informed that no refund of shipping cost would be made and the deadline of 3 days was given within which the complainant had to return the defective goods herself and on failure of the complainant to do this, her claim would be closed. The complainant vide her e-mail dated 01.03.2016 make a request to the OP No.1 to provide her pick up facility for return of defective goods and issue her refund and reminded OP No.1 that she is a working woman and to save her time she made online shopping. The complainant received e-mail on 01.03.2016 asking her to return the product to OP No.2 within a period of 3 days by following a certain list of best practices, which they themselves had given in the e-mail. The complainant vide her e-mail dated 08.03.2016 to OP No.1 informed that both the OPs are playing blame game and shifting responsibility and if no action is taken within 3 days she would approach the Consumer Forum for getting redressal of her grievance. The complainant received an e-mail dated 08.03.2016 from OP No.1 where she was given an option of taking her refund in the form of a Gift Card of Rs.899/- and that there was no need to return the item to the seller. The complainant accepted this option by e-mail dated 08.03.2016. However, complainant received another e-mail on 08.03.2016 from OP No.1 that incorrect informed had been sent to her in the previous e-mail as only two out of our jeggings were short so only Rs.450/- would be given to the complainant in the form of a Gift Card. This was followed by another e-mail dated 09.03.2016 of OP No.1. However, this offer was not acceptable to the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.899/- the cost of jeggings alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; to pay her Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; Rs.1,00,000/- towards exemplary damages for misleading advertisements, false representation and cheating and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint is contested by OP No.1 by filing reply in which it took preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer of OP No.1 as she has not purchased goods from OP No.1 nor paid any amount/consideration to OP No.1.The goods have been purchased by the complainant from third party seller selling its products on the website operated by OP No.1. OP No.1 is merely an online marketplace where independent third party sellers have listed their products for sale. The product was delivered to the complainant in a sealed box as it was received from the seller. The role of OP No.1 is limited to that of a facilitator and not the seller/manufacturer and hence it was neither liable nor responsible for any actions or inactions of sellers nor any breach of conditions, representations or warranties by the sellers or manufacturers of the products. On merits also OP No.1 has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
4. Notice to OP No.2 was delivered on 20.06.2016 but none appeared for it. Hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2016.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and e-mails Ex.C-1 to C-15. In rebuttal, counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel (Litigation) Ex.OP-1/1; original letter Ex.OP-1; copy of resolution dt. 05.11.2014 Ex.OP-2; condition of use Ex.OP-3 and conditions of sale Ex. OP-4.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has placed online order with OP No.2 through OP No.1 for purchase of Oleva Women’s Denim Look Jeggings. After receipt of the product, the complainant found that two jeggings were not of appropriate size and the complainant made a request for return of the product and refund of the price. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have admitted their fault and even OP No.1 asked the complainant to accept gift voucher of Rs.899/- in lieu of purchase of the jeggings. Learned counsel further argued that thereafter lot of e-mails exchanged between the parties, however, the issue was not resolved by the OPs.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that there is no fault on the part of OP No.1 as the complainant has placed the order for the product manufactured by OP No.2 from the website of OP No.1. Learned counsel argued that the role of OP No.1 is limited to that of a facilitator and not the seller/manufacturer. Hence OP No.1 was neither liable nor responsible for any actions or inactions of sellers. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.
8. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the counsel for the parties. The complainant has proved on record various e-mails exchanged between her and OP No.1 on the issue in hand. OP No.1 vide e-mail Ex.C-6 asked the complainant to file A to Z guarantee claim on its website and assured the complainant that she will receive the refund much sooner. Accordingly the complainant filed A to Z guarantee claim with OP No.1 which was confirmed vide e-mail dated 29.02.2016 of OP No.1 Ex.C-7. OP No.1 vide e-mail Ex.C-8 had agreed to issue refund if the complainant return the item. However, the complainant informed OP No.1 vide E-mail Ex.C-9 that she cannot return the item as she is a working woman and asked the OP No.1 to make arrangement for picking up the product from the complainant. Then, after lot of e-mails lastly OP No.1 vide email dated 08.03.2016 Ex.C-14 offered to the complainant that they have agreed to provide the complainant with gift card of Rs.450.00. These acts on the part of OP No.1 show clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. The contention of OP No.1 that it is not liable for the acts of sellers cannot be accepted as it is OP No.1 who has admitted to make refund to the complainant by way of gift card. The complainant has booked the order with OP No.1 and it is OP No.1 who is dealing with the complainant as is evident from e-mails Ex.C-2 to C-15. OP No.2 has chosen not to appear to contest the complaint despite delivery of notice upon it. Non appearance of OP No.2 despite knowledge amounts to admission of the averments of the complaint on the part of OP No.2.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed against both the OPs with the direction to refund to the complainant Rs.899/- (Rs. Eight hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 19.02.2016 till actual payment. The OPs should also pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 27.06.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
