IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 06th day of August, 2021
Filed on 29.01.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy.P.R, BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.27/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Thankachan.C.S 1. The Authorized Signatory
Nataraja Sadanam Amazon Online Distribution
North Aryad.P.O Service Pvt. Ltd. Banglore-261
Palathanal Brigade World Trade Centre
Alappuzha-.688538 8th Floor, Dr. Rajkumar Road
(Party in Person) Malleswaram West, Banglore,
Karnataka-560055
(Adv. Sri. Rajendra Gopinath) 2. The Manager, Bajaj Finserv
1st Floor, Pulimoottil Trade
Centre, Ammankovil Street,
Mullackal, Alappuzha,
Kerala-688011
3. The Manager, Bajaj Finserv
Thanneermukkom Road
Near Reliance Petrol Pumb
Kodathikavala, Cherthala
Pin-688524
(Adv. Legitha D-cruz for OP2&3)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
On 13/10/2019 complainant booked a BSA Photon Bicycle worth Rs.6,999/- through M/s Amazon. He received an intimation that the total expenses will be Rs.7,398/-. The order was placed through EMI card of M/s BAJAJ FINSERV. The amount was to be paid as installments in his bank account. On 23/10/2019 he received a message that the package will become late. He received another message stating that the package was lost and requested to wait for two more days. So far he has not received the article. M/s BAJAJ FINSERV demanded him to pay the loan instalments though it was intimated to them that he has not received the article. Now M/s BAJAJ FINSERV is threatening him that his name will be included in the CIBIL. Hence the complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.35,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complainant has wrongly impleaded Amazon Online Distribution Service Pvt. Ltd as the 1st opposite party whereas the entity operating the e-commerce market place is Amazon seller service Pvt. Ltd. The relief sought is against M/s BAJAJ FINSERV. Complainant placed an order for purchase of a BSA cycles Photon X bicycle 26 inch for men with an independent 3rd party seller ie, M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company having its office at Banglore. A tax invoice against the said order was issued by the independent 3rd party seller ie, M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company clearly suggesting that the cycle was sold to the complainant. The tax bill contains the GST number and PAN number of the company. So the contract of sale was executed by and between the complainant and M/s Presidency cycle importing company. There is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant.
The product could not be delivered by M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company due to reason known to them. M/s Presidency cycle importing company is not made a party in this complaint. As apprised by the 3rd party seller ie, M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company a refund of Rs.6,648/- had already been issued to the complainant on 5/11/2019. An independent 3rd party seller on the e-commerce market place operated by this opposite party is for a consideration. The buyers ie, consumers of the independent 3rd party sellers use e-commerce market place post registration with this opposite party with free of any cost of charge. Since the invoice was issued by M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company this opposite party has no liability to deliver the product. The complainant has not purchased any product from this opposite party. This opposite party has not received any money from the complainant. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is defective, baseless and devoid of merits. This complaint is filed only to harass these opposite parties. Details of the complainant such as loan account number, customer ID, PAN card number etc are not mentioned in the complaint. The present matter is purely contractual and commercial in nature and hence the complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as there is no evidence against this opposite parties. The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1.Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order against opposite parties 2 and 3 from including his name in the CIBIL?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.25,000/-as compensation for deficiency of service?
3. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 and Ext.A6series from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
5. Point No.1 and 2:-
The case of PW1, complainant is that on 13/10/2019 he booked a BSA Photon Bicycle worth Rs.7,398/- through 1st opposite party M/s Amazon Online Distribution Service Pvt. Ltd. He booked the order through the EMI card issued by 2nd and 3rd opposite party. The cycle was not delivered. He received Ext.A3 message stating that the package is late and Ext.A4 message stating that the package may be lost. Since he has not received the article booked, he filed the complaint claiming an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony. He is seeking a further relief against opposite party 2 and 3 to restrain them from including his name in the CIBIL score. He has got an allegation that opposite parties 2 and 3 are threatening legal action over phone demanding the amount. 1st opposite party filed a detailed version stating that complainant booked the article with M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company and the 1st opposite party is only a carrier. 2nd and 3rd opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is frivolous one only to harass them. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 and A6series were marked. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
The relief sought by the complainant in the complaint is that to restrain opposite parties 2 and 3 from including his name in the CIBIL score. However during cross examination he admitted that he has no complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 and they were only made parties. During cross examination PW1 admitted that there was no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 and 1st opposite party is responsible. As discussed earlier the case advanced by PW1 is that he booked a BSA Photon Bicycle through the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party in there detailed version contented that the order was placed through an independent 3rd party seller named M/s Presidency cycle importing company and they are a necessary party in the complaint. The monitory dealing are between the complainant and the said Presidency cycle importing company. 1st opposite party is only a carrier and they cannot be held liable for the non delivery of product. It was pointed out that the contract is between the complainant and M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company which is an independent 3rd party seller. It was pointed out in the version that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and 1st opposite party and so 1st opposite party is not liable for the non delivery of the article.
It is an admitted case that the package was not delivered to the complainant. The complainant has not made the seller of the article M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company as an opposite party in the complaint. As pointed out in the version of the 1st opposite party since the contract is between complainant and M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company they are necessary party. Complainant has not produced any document such as bill etc to prove the transaction with M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company. Only through the version filed by 1st opposite party it was brought out that the transaction is between complainant and M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company. According to PW1 the total value of the cycle was Rs.7,398/-. However Ext.A6 series shows that the demand of opposite parties 2 and 3 is for Rs.15,470/- and Rs. 13,804/- and Rs.11,044/-. There is no explanation regarding the increase of amount. It is not known whether the transaction relates to this case. Moreover as discussed earlier during cross examination PW1 admitted that he is not seeking any relief against opposite parties 2 and 3. From Ext.A5 it is seen that the refund process stated on 5/11. As seen in the version filed by 1st opposite party the transaction is with M/s Presidency Cycle Importing Company and they are not made party in the complaint. In said circumstances complainant could not prove any deficiency of service against the present opposite parties and so he is not entitled for any relief. These points are found against the complainant.
6. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 6 th day of August, 2021.
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thankachan.C.S(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Loan Details
Ext.A2 - Payment Information from Amazon
Ext.A3 - Message from Amazon
Ext.A4 - Message from Amazon
Ext.A5 - E-mail message from Amazon
Ext.A6series - Messages from Bajaj Finserv.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
