KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 486/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 25.05.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 446/2015 of CDRF, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN K.R : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 23/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore- 560055, Karnataka, India.
(By Adv. Rahul Sundaram)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Anees. A.K, S/o Hassainar. A.K., Alikkadavath House, Chellikkad, Tanur P.O, Malappuram- 676302.
- A2 Z Alfa, Sl. Nos. 241-244, 275-284, Penjeria (V), Kottur (M), Mahbubnagar District, Hyderabad- 509228, Telengana.
JUDGMENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.: MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the first opposite party in C.C. No. 446/2015 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 17.02.2016 the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally, an amount of Rs. 3,380/- being the value of the article along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay 6% interest from the date of the order.
- The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant purchased online a Cat Men’s Council Navy blue sneakers of UK 8 size through the website of the opposite party as per the order dated 4.10.2015 which was delivered on 15.10.2015. As the size of the shoe was small to his leg, he returned the same through proper channel as mentioned in the website of opposite party. As per their policy, amount paid will be refunded within 5 working days after receiving the package back. The opposite party refused to receive the same and so it was returned to the complainant. When he tried to send it back again it was not accepted as the courier was having an instruction not to accept return parcels. Despite requests the opposite party did not refund the amount. Hence the complainant filed the complaint praying for refund of the amount with compensation and costs.
3. The complaint was admitted by the District Commission and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The complainant filed chief affidavit and Exbts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Though notices were served on the opposite parties they did not appear or contest the case. Therefore, the opposite parties were set ex parte.As the opposite parties were declared ex-parte, there was no oral or documentary evidence on their side. Hence the complaint has been allowed by the District Commission placing reliance on the unchallenged evidence available in this case, and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 3,380/- being the value of the article with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/- with 6% interest from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order the 1st opposite party has filed this appeal.
4. Heard. Perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/1st opposite party is not the manufacturer or the seller of the product that was ordered by the complainant. They only provide a platform for such sale. The complainant purchased the product after duly agreeing to the “conditions of use and sale” stated in the website. The appellant neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. They are only a facilitator and not responsible for any defect in the product. As the appellants are not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and the seller they are not responsible for payment of compensation or refunding the cost of the product. As they did not get the notice, they lost an opportunity to contest the case before the District Commission. They have sufficient grounds to counter the claims of the complainant/respondent. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The order of the District Commission is wrong and liable to be set aside. Hence they prayed for setting aside the order of the District Commission and remand the case for fresh disposal. Notice issued to the respondent /complainant was returned with the endorsement ‘Left India’
6. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the records. In its order, the District commission observed that “though notice was issued, opposite parties were absent, when the case was called and hence set ex-parte”. No evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to show that the observation of the District Commission is erroneous in any manner. Thus, though notice was served on the opposite parties in this case, they have not appeared before the District Commission or filed written version. Therefore, they were all set ex-parte and the complaint has been decided by the District Commission on the evidence that was adduced by the complainant. The said procedure of the District Commission is as per section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is in conformity with the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757. Therefore, the District Commission cannot be found fault with for declaring the appellant/1st opposite party ex-parte and proceeding in the matter. It is also not permissible for them to be provided with any further opportunity to plead and prove their case.
7. On the basis of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any error in the finding of the District Commission. There is no valid ground to interfere with their order.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 17.02.2016 in C.C. No. 446/2015 of the District Commission is confirmed. No costs.
The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 8,400/- towards statutory deposit at the time of filing the appeal. The 1st respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount on filing proper application. The balance amount due as per the order of the District Commission, shall be paid by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the respondent/ complainant is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for executing the order.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER