| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PAPUM PARE DISTRICT, YUPIA, ARUNACHAL PRADESH CDRC/ PP-129/2023 Date of Judgment: 23rd Feb’2024 Sri Techi Dodum Tara S/o Techi Kachin Tara Near Lekhi Public School, NLG, Arunachal Pradesh-791110 … Complainant -Versus- 1. Amazon India, A Subsidiary of Amazon Company Registered office at Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwararam (w) Bangluru- 560055, Karnataka,India. 2. The Sr. Vice President and Country Manager, Amazon th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwararam (w) Bangluru- 560055, Karnataka,India. 3. Kanishka Enterprises (An online of Cosmo Care), The world of home healthcare products. Surgical Supplier, BP Machine Nebulzer, Awas Vikas,Colony, Lohiapuram, Farrukhabad, UP-209625. 4. The Safexpress Logistics ParkDelivery Pvt Ltd, Apartnered courier service of Amazon India, Branch/office at Lekhi Village, NH-415 Opposite- Kipa Marble &Kipa Steel Dist- Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh ... Opposite Parties CORAM: Smt. Jaweplu Chai, President Mr. Tarh Loma, Member Miss Deepa Yoka, Member For the Complainant :Ms. L. Moriam, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Shri T. Yaram, T. Don, M.Leya, Advocates Date of Filing :31.03.2023 Date of Reply by OP No. 3 :28.07.2023 Date of Hearing :19.01.2024 Date of Judgment :23.02.2024 And having stood for consideration to this day, the District Commission delivered the following Judgment. J U D G M E N T - Complainant’s case: On 31.03.2023the complainant filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties u/s 2(11) of the Act.
- The complainant stated that he is a "consumer"within the definition provided U/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. That the opposite party No. 1, Amazon India, is subsidiary of Amazon Company, and E-commerce Site.That, the opposite party no. 2 is the Sr. Vice President and Country Manager of Amazon India. The opposite party No. 3 is the seller (Kanishka Enterprises). The opposite Party no. 4 is Safexpress Logistics Park, Delivery Pvt Ltd., a partnered courier company/agent of amazon India, entrusted with delivery and return pickup services in the capital of Arunachal Pradesh.
- That, the complainant as a consumer ordered products online on Amazon India (Amazon.in) E-commerce platform on07.12.2022 (Purchase order number No. 407-1744453-7209948) to deliver shipping destination/address of Doly Nabam, Takam Yahi Building Plot 19, near sky digital cinema hall Nirjuli, AP, Arunachal Pradesh, 791109. The complainant purchased product/item of Wheelchair, sold by Kanishka Enterprises, on Amazon India E-commerce, of totalamount of Rs. 67,000/- through payment method of visa ending in 3759.
- As there was a substantial delay in delivery date of the ordered product, the complainant asked over the phone to cancel the order and the complainant made return request visa-vis amazon.in order#-1744453-7209948 with citing the reason of return on 14.02.2023. Hence, the complainant never received the order# 407-1744453-7209948.
- That, cause of action for the matter arose on the following dates, they are: On 07.12.2022 when the complainant made purchase order; on 14.02.22 when the complainant made return request of order number No.407-1744453- 7209948); on 20.12.22, when the complainant had text massages chat with the OP No. 1 by informing that he had cancelled the item four days back with no any updates regarding the cancellation or refund claimed by the complainant, on 21.12.2023, the complainant had further text chat with OP No.1 regarding detail update about the refund and return item; on 25.12.2022, the complainant again text chat with the OP no.1 stating filing of claim for cancelled product/item; on 08.01.23 the complainant received text messages from the OP No.1 that the complainant will be refundedin 2 days stating that the seller not received the product back.
- Since, the return request was raised by the complainant on 14.02.2022 and the Amazon India approved return request for the same day. Further, the complainant had claim for the refund through telephonically conversation and text massages to the OP No. 1. The claim for refund request of Rs. 67,000/- had received/approved by the OP No. 1 (Amazon India) on 12.01.2023.
- That, there was no update or confirmation at all either from via Amazon.in site or email or SMS alerts as to completion of refund request. The complainant, as a step for rectification, made several calls to all the opposite parties but they failed to confirm the receipt of the same by Amazon India to the concerned seller and hence they could not provide any correct status of his claim/refund request. On being aggrieved with delay in completion of his refund request thereof,the complainant also called OP no.4 (Delivery Courier Service) on several occasions to enquire about return status update and refund process.
- That, the OP no. 1. has acted in a most negligent, incompetency and irresponsible manner while refunding the amount of item. That, there is a serious flaws in the process or mechanism of Amazon India as to tracking and processing request with regards to product/item via its ecommerce platform causing deficiencies in service and leading to undue and unwarranted harassment and agony to the buyer/customers.
- That, the opposite party no.2, being the head of therespondent Amazon India OP No.1, is liable and responsible for the actions of the subordinates, employees and agents of the amazon India. The OP No. 4, being Lekhi Branch of Delivery Pvt Ltd. (A partnered courier service of Amazon India), is responsible for the actions of its subordinates. The opposite parties are responsible in their own capacity as well as vicariously liable for the deficiency in service caused to the complainant.
- That, thecomplainant is entitled to compensationfor deficiency of service by the opposite parties, causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant in delay in refund process.
- That, the Hon’ble Commission has territorial as well as pecuniaryjurisdiction to entertain this complaint. That, the present complaint is being filed within theprescribed period as mentioned/enumerated under section 69 of the Act.That, this petition is made bonafide and in the interest ofjustice.
- Therefore the complainant humbly prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.67,000/- (Sixty Seven Thousand) only as the refund of the Purchased Order No. 407- 1744453-7209948; Rs.50,0000/- (Fifty Thousand) only for deficiencies in servicecaused by the opposite parties;Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only for causing unnecessary tremendous harassment, mental and physical agony to the complainant;Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as the cost of litigation to the complainantalong with eighteen percent (18% per annum interest). Andfurther prayed to pass such any other order(s) as this Hon'ble District Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
- That the case proceeded ex-parte against OP No. 1 & 2 vide order dated 30.06.2023, as despite of having received the notice, they did not contest the case, however they returned the cost of product through online transaction. And the case proceeded ex-parte against O.P No. 4 vide order dated 20.10.23.
- Upon the notice, the Opposite partyNo. 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement on 28.07.23 and denied that there has been any deficiency of service or any negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 in providing the services as a registered seller on Amazon India/ Opposite Party No. 1 (an e-commerce website) to the Complainant Sri Techi Dodum Tara, who placed an order at the website of Opposite Party No. 1 and is aggrieved by non-refund of Rs. 67,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Thousand) only by Opposite Party No. 1.
- It stated that the present Complaint is frivolous, vexatious, completely baseless and unsubstantiated against the answering OP and hence present complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no material on record to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant and the present Complaint is merely causing undue mental harassment to the answering OP.
- That the present complaint is a wholly speculative Complaint filed by the Complainant. The complaint has not disclosed any cause of action against the answering OP and hence the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the answering OP on this very ground. Despite the absence of any deflciency of service, the answering OP has been unnecessarily dragged into this dispute only to harass, pressurize and tarnish the reputation of OP No.3.
- The Complainant has not filed complete documents pertaining to the alleged deficiency of service. The Complainant has intentionally supressed these facts/ documents in order to mislead this Hon’ble Commission.That the Complainant’s allegation of deficiency of service levelled against the answering OP is completely misconceived, unfounded and contrary to the records and established legal principles. It is evident from the records annexed with the present written statement that the order placed by the Complainant for wheelchair with OP No. 1 on 07.12.2022 was dispatched by the answering OP from his place of business on 09.12.2022 through courier services provided by OP No. 4 (partner courier of OP No. 1) and the same arrived at its destination on 19.12.2022.
- The allegations made in the Complaint against the answering OP do not invoke a consumer dispute involving deficiency of service and as such the present complaint is without jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Thecomplaint ought to be rejected for misjoinder of parties. That the answering OP is not a proper and necessary party to the present dispute due to lack of any allegation of deficiency of service against the answering OP. Therefore, the present complaint cannot be sustained against the answering OP.
- That no documents have been filed by the Complainant in support of his contentions, the Complainant has made a misconceived attempt to mislead this Hon’ble Commission as the Complainant has not filed any record. A bare perusal of the entire record filed with the present Written Statement will show that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OP and best possible service was provided to the Complainant. That the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of answering OP in the present case is belied by the record and therefore the present Complaint deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
- That the answering OP is only a registered seller with OP No. 1 and is engaged in the business of providing home healthcare products including but not limited to Surgical supplier, BP Machine, Nebulizer, Oxygen Concentrator, Bipap, Cpap and Hospital furniture to customers of OP No. 1. OP No. 3 is having its registered office at 6A/203, Awas Vikas Colony, Lohiyapuram,Badhpur, Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.
- That the Complainant placed an order bearing Purchase Order No. 407 – 1744453-7209948 dated 07.12.2022 with OP No. 1 for a wheelchair sold by answering OP. The answering OP having responsibility to fulfil the order, duly dispatched the item ordered through courier services provided by OP No. 4 (courier partner of OP No. 1) from his place of business on 09.12.2022 and the same arrived at the destination on 19.12.2022.
- Thatonce it has dispatched the wheelchair on09.12.2022 and it was delivered to Complainant on 19.12.2022, OP No. 3 could not accept any return or cancellation request from Complainant. The complainant could raise request of cancellation or return with OP No. 1 only after delivery of goods and not before.
- That according to Amazon's return policy A to Z, when the customer receives product damage/wrong item/ defective etc. then, A to Z claim is sought by the customer and OP No. 1 itself takes the cognizance of the matter and initiates refund but customer must submit a service request to OP No. 1 and it is pertinent to mention here that direct seller which is OP No. 3 herein has no responsibility regarding this.
- That the seller (OP No. 3) cannot refund the amount directly to the customer without Amazon’s instructions by OP No. 1 and if seller directly refund the amount to the customer without any request from the shopping platform i.e. Amazon then, seller must pay 10% to 15% referral fee and cancellation charge to Amazon. That it was only on 19.04.2023 that OP No. 3 received the notice in present complaint. The OP No. 3/ seller herein to help the aggrieved complainant, directly contacted the complainant over the phone and asked him to send a request for refund to OP No.1/ Amazon and clearly told the complainant that seller/ OP No. 3 cannot refund the amount directly.
- That as and when the complainant sent a refund request through OP No. 1/ Amazon and as soon as OP No.3 seller received refund request from the OP No. 1 on 19.04.2023, a sum of Rs. 67,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Thousand) only was refunded back to the complainant by the OP No.3 through OP No. 1.
- That the refund process was initiated immediately after the receiving the information from OP No. 1, and hence, it is pertinent to note that OP No. 3 cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it has acted in the interest of complainant by refunding the amount of Rs. 67,000/- immediately after receiving request from OP No. 1. Thus, the charges levelled against OP No. 3 are false concocted and needs to discharge from his duties.
- That the answering OP being the seller dispatched the wheelchair via courier service of OP No. 4 on 09.12.2022 and the same was delivered on 19.12.2022. That the main grievance of the complainant is with regard to OP No. 1 and the answering OP cannot be held liable for the acts/ omissions on part of OP No. 1. That until and unless there is any query received from the OP No.1, the seller cannot act on its own capacity as there are some guidelines which have to be followed between the seller/ OP No. 3 and Amazon/ OP No. 1.
- That the OP No. 1 has partnered with OP No. 4 to courier the orders from sellers to customers. It is pertinent to note that OP No. 3 dispatched the product on 09.12.2022, the same was in transit on 11.12.2022 and it was delivered at the destination on 19.12.2022. The OP No. 4 closed the transaction on 12.01.2023.
- That the OP No. 3 is not directly connected with the customer i.e. the Complainant herein. The order for a producl/ wheelchair by Complainant was placed directly with OP No. 1 and not the seller i.e. answering OP. That until and unless the OP No. 3 receives the product back along with a request of refund placed by the customer with OP No. 1 and the same is confirmed by OP No. 1 till then OP No. 3 cannot process refund.
- That the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the answering OP in the present dispute wherein the main grievance of complainant is against OP No. 1.
- That the complainant's claim of Rs. 67,000/- cannot be sustained, as the same is baseless and devoid of any merit. The answering Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever in any manner to the Complainant. It is further submitted by the OP No.3 that complainant failed to make any case against the OP No. 3, therefore the OP No.3 should be discharged from the instant case
- Points for determination:
- Whether the opposite party caused deficiency of service as provided U/S 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any other relief/reliefs?
- Argument and submission by the learned counsels:
On 19.01.2024, both the parties, i.e., the learned counsels for the complainant and the Opposite Party made their final hearing. Ms. L. Moriam, the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted by reiterating the statement made in his complaint thatthough the opposite party No. 1 has already refunded the purchase amount of Rs. 67,000/-, but she is entitled for additional cost of litigation, harassment etc. That the OP by refunding the purchase amount has admitted the deficiency of service. - That,the opposite parties have acted in a most negligent, incompetency and irresponsible manner while providing refund the amount. Thereby, the opposite parties are responsible in their own capacity as well as vicariously liable for the deficiency in service caused to the complainant.Therefore, most respectfully prayed that the opposite parties be directed topay compensation amount of Rs. 50,0000/- only for deficiency in service, Rs. 50,0000/- only for causing unnecessary harassment, mental and physical agony to the complainant and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the cost of litigation. The learned counsel submitted that all the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
- The Opposite Party No. 3 by filing their written argument stated that the present matter arose out of a transaction whereby the complainant ordered a product i.e. a wheelchair though online mode using the service of the online platform being Opposite party 1/ Respondent No.1. The said product was ordered as per the usage policy of the Respondent No. 1 and the said product was duly dispatched by the Respondent No. 3 which was ought to be delivered by the respondent No. 4 i.e the courier service which is in partnership with the respondent No. 1.The case of the complainant is that the said product was cancelled by the complainant before the delivery of the product and hence she raised a request for the refund of the amount paid for the said product which was not processed swiftly and the Complainant is injured by the deficiency in service qua all the Respondents.
- That the complainant is admitting the fact that the refund was initiated by her and the same was processed by the Respondent No. 1 as acknowledgment of the initiation of refund. The point of contention is that after acknowledging the said issue, the Respondent No. 1 delayed in processing the refund.
- That any claim/liability of any Respondent qua the Complainant falls within the domain of the contractual obligation of the Respondent/s toward the Complainant. That the Respondent No. 1 provides the platform on which the sellers like the enterprise sell their product online via an App or the website. The policy of Amazon is clear about the role and liability of the sellers.That the seller is liable for packing of goods and the dispatching the same in due time. Since the delivery of the goods to the final customer/consumer is done by the official partner of the Respondent No.1, the liability for delivery of the goods, after proper dispatch,lies upon the delivery agent which in present case is Respondent No. 4, who is official delivery partner of the Respondent No. 1.
- The learned counsel for OP No. 3 submitted that in the case of Baljinder Kaur Vs. Amazon, CC No. 333 Of 2017, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, it was observed and held as:
- that they never delivered any product against the alleged booking, is out rightly rejected. Also the stand of the Opposite Party that there is no privity of contract with the complainant, asthey merely provides an online marketplace where the independent third party sellers can list their product for sale; therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listing of products on the website and ASSPL isneither responsible for the product that are listed on the website by various third party sellers', is not sustainable. The perusal of Ann.C-2 suggests that the OPs are not onlyprovidingplatform to the intendingsellers for booking of the order for goods which are made available on their website. but goods are also delivered and collected back by them in case of return.The relevant extract is reproduced as under:- We hereby acknowledge pick up of your Return item via Ref. Tracking # 710280468647. After your return item is received by Amazon , we initiate the refund/replacement with the below timeline.In our opinion the wrongful denial made by the Opposite Party in the given case, tantamounts to unfair trade practice, apart from rendering deficient services. Thus, it is the liability of the Opposite Party to make good the loss of the complainant and the Opposite Party would be at liberty to recover the said amount from the seller concerned, if required. rhe return made by the complainant of the booked product has duly been acknowledged by the OPs by generating SMS on the number of the complainant which is part of the evidence before us (Ann.C-3). We feel that unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party forced the complainant to indulge into litigation for getting her due back."
- That the delivery and collection of the goods in case of return is to be done by the Respondent No. 4 in the present case and hence no liability of the enterprise arise in the said case.
- The learned counsel further submitted that in the case of G Roopkiran V. Amazon India Pvr Ltd,Rep by its Authorized Signatory, CC No. 84 of 2022, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy,it was observed and held by the Ld. Commission that:
- Party No.1 and the complainant herein not made any direct dealing with Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, it is to be accepted that Opposite Party No.2 has supplied the product at the instance of Opposite Party No.1- Amazon Facility Centre being agent of Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 cannot escape from its liability."
- That when the Seller concerned is not directly liable to the complaint/ consumer then in that case the Respondent No. 1 will be liable. In present case, it is clear that neither there was any fault of the Respondent No. 3 nor any deficiency is claimed against the Enterprise. Also, in the Written statement filed by the Respondent No. 3, it clearly states that the refund of the said amount was initiated forthwith when it was brought to the notice of the enterprise. There is no deficiency on the part of the respondent No. 3 enterprise.
- That no defect in the product or in dispatching of the product is alleged against the Respondent No. 3, the enterprise. That the refund of the said amount can be initiated only when the said product is returned to the original seller and as per the WS of theRespondent No.3, it is amply and clearly stated that the product was not returned to the enterprise by the Respondent No.4. That in the present case, the liability of the Respondent No.3 is limited and is not joint with that of the other Respondents. In the light of the settled law and precedent, the claim against the Respondent No.3 is ought to be set aside as it is only a proforma defendant and no claims arises against the same. It is hereby prayed that in the interest of Justice, Equity, Fairness, Good Faith the claim against the Respondent No. 3 be set aside.
- Findings and reasons for decisions:
We have given our sincere consideration on the entire evidences on record both oral and documentary and other materials like annexures produced by both the complainant and the Opposite Party.Now, let us see, how far the complainant has been able to prove her case against the opposite parties on the basis of material available on record. - Section 2 (11) and 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, being relevant are reproduced below:
- Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, gives the definition of the word Deficiency, which says, “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-
- Any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which caused loss or injury to the consume; and
- Deliberate withholding of relevant information by such persons to the consumer.
- Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 speaks of manner in which complaint shall be made. — (1) A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with a District Commission by— (a) the consumer, —
- to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service is provided or agreed to be provided; or
- who alleges unfair trade practice in respect of such goods or service.
- Now let’s see the first point for determination as to whether the opposite party caused deficiency of service as provided U/S 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- We have carefully gone through the available materials on record. From the perusal of the W/S of the OP No.3, it is observed that the product which was ordered by the complainant on 07.12.2022 was dispatched by the OP from his place of business on 09.12.2022 through courier services provided by OP No. 4 (Partner courier of OP No. 1) and the same arrived at its destination on 19.12.2022.
- That this Commission is aware that even the opposite parties need time to take order, do packing and send the product to the destination. And if after delivery of the goods, the customer requests for refund, necessary formalities and technicalities have to be completed by the opposite parties. Even the opposite parties incur cost in packing and sending the products. In the instant case, the opposite parties despite having sent the products, which was later refused to be accepted, the opposite parties later refunded the whole amount of rs. 67,000/- to the complainant. Annexure 1 of the OP No. 3 shows that they incurred rs. 2904/- in sending the product from Farrukhabad, UP to Nirjuli on 09.12.2022.
- Further like any other services, even the opposite parties have their due procedures in dealing with the business including the process of cancellation request. It says that the complainant could raise request of cancellation or return with OP No. 1 only after delivery of goods and not before. And admittedly just after the order was placed, the product was shipped to the complainant by the OP.
- That the seller (OP No. 3) had also replied that they cannot refund the amount directly to the customer without Amazon’s instructions by OP No. 1 and if seller directly refund the amount to the customer without any request from the shopping platform i.e. Amazon then, seller must pay 10% to 15% referral fee and cancellation charge to Amazon. That it was only on 19.04.2023 that OP No. 3 received the notice in present complaint. The OP No. 3directly contacted the complainant over the phone and asked him to send a request for refund to OP No.1/ Amazon and clearly told the complainant that seller/ OP No. 3 cannot refund the amount directly. As and when the complainant sent a refund request through OP No. 1/ Amazon and as soon as OP No.3 seller received refund request from the OP No. 1 on 19.04.2023, a sum of Rs. 67,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Thousand) only was refunded back to the complainant by the OP No.3 through OP No. 1.
- Therefore, taking into the consideration as stated above that the product amount was already refunded to the complaint after he completed the required procedure of claiming refund of amount to the OP No. 1, we decide all the points for determination together and by holding thatthe opposite party caused no deficiency of service as provided U/S 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the complainant is not entitled to get compensation from the OP nor the complainant is entitled for any other relief/reliefs.
O R D E R Therefore, this Commission after hearing both the learned counsels, perusing of the documents and annexures submitted by the parties, held that it is found that the complainant could not make a case of deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is dismissed without cost. With this order, the case is disposed of on contest. Given under our hand and seal of this Forum on 23rdday of Feb’ 2024. (Miss Deepa Yoka) (Mr. Tarh Loma) Member Member (Smt. Jaweplu Chai) President | |
