Haryana

Kaithal

439/20

Ramphal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Darshita Aashiyana Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ranjeet Arora

06 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           439 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:    23.12.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:       06.05.2024.

 

Ramphal s/o Shri Ramswaroop, r/o near Easyday, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., No.3, 4th Floor, Salarpuria Windsor, ULSOOR Road, Bengaluru-560042, Karnataka, through its Manager.
2. Amazon Seller  Services Pvt. Ltd. (ASSPL), having its registered address at Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, through its Manager.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:    SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Ranjeet Arora, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 (Defence             already struck of).

                   Shri Aakash Chawla, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

                  

ORDER     -     NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he purchased two mobile of Redmi Note 9 through OP No.2 vide Invoice No.IN-MA A5-19212 & IN-SATA-59899 vide orders dated 27.08.2020 in the sum of Rs.12000/- each. That on 01.09.2020, he received one courier from OPs, containing a mobile Redmi 9 colour Grey vide IMEI No.860862043551482. That on 07.09.2020, he received another courier for order which was placed before OPs, but as he opened the said courier in front of courier boy, while making video of the same, he found that the said courier containing only a box with a charger in the same, as there was no mobile in it. He contacted the OPs immediately through their customer care number, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. That thereafter, he made various calls to the OPs in this regard, but all in vain. That he also sent a legal notice dated 17.11.2020 through registered post to the OPs, but OPs neither replied the same nor admitted his genuine claim. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, both OPs appeared before this Commission and OP No.2 filed its written statement, whereas, OP No.1 failed to file its written statement, despite availing various sufficient opportunities, as such, defence of OP No.1 is hereby struck of, vide order dated 07.03.2024, by this Commission.

4.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that ASSPL/OP No.2 operates and manages the e-commerce marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale and OP No.2 exercise no influence or interference in the said process. That the complainant has alleged that he had placed an order to purchase a Redmi 9 Pro mobile phone from e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL and has raised a grievance that a different product has been delivered to him instead of mobile phone. Pertinently, the complainant could have only purchased the product from an independent third party seller listed on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL and not from ASSPL itself. Further, the complainant has failed to give details like Order ID, Invoice, Registered Account etc., which are necessary to enable ASSPL to answer the claim of the complainant in respect of said order. Therefore, ASSPL is filing an application, before this Commission, seeking better particulars from the complainant.  

5.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7.

6.                OP No.1 in its evidence, tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to R-6. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure OPW2/1 to OPW2/4.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased two mobile of Redmi Note 9 through OP No.2 vide Invoice No.IN-MA A5-19212 & IN-SATA-59899 vide orders dated 27.08.2020 in the sum of Rs.12000/- each. He further argued that on 01.09.2020, the complainant received one courier from OPs, containing a mobile Redmi 9 colour Grey. He further argued that on 07.09.2020, the complainant received another courier for order which was placed before OPs, but as the complainant opened the said courier, in front of courier boy, while making video of the same, he found that the said courier containing only a box with a charger in the same, as there was no mobile in it. He further argued that the complainant contacted the OPs immediately through their customer care number, but they did not give any satisfactory reply, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

9.                Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that ASSPL/OP No.2 operates and manages the e-commerce marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale and OP No.2 exercise no influence or interference in the said process. He further argued that the complainant has alleged that he had placed an order to purchase a Redmi 9 Pro mobile phone from e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL and has raised a grievance that a different product has been delivered to him instead of mobile phone. He further argued that pertinently, the complainant could have only purchased the product from an independent third party seller listed on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL and not from ASSPL itself. He further argued that further, the complainant has failed to give details like Order ID, Invoice, Registered Account etc., which are necessary to enable ASSPL to answer the claim of the complainant in respect of said order. He further argued that therefore, ASSPL is filing an application, before this Commission, seeking better particulars from the complainant. 

10.              From Tax Invoice Annexure R-5, produced by OP No.1, on the case file, it is evident that the complainant purchased mobile of Redmi Note 9 through OP No.2, vide Invoice No.IN-SATA-59899 dated 29.08.2020, order ID 171-7504827-7865900, in the sum of Rs.11998/- from OPs.   

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that on 07.09.2020, when the complainant received courier and opened the same, in front of courier boy, while making video of the same, he found that the said courier containing only a box with a charger in the same, as there was no mobile in it. He contacted the OPs immediately through their customer care number, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant produced email dated 01.10.2020 written from one Ravi Kumar to Surinder Pal Gaba Annexure C-2, wherein, he mentioned that today, he has received one courier and when he opened the same, he found the same empty. The complainant produced one complaint, lodged by him, against the OPs, in PS Civil Line as Annexure C-3. Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP No.2 has contended that OP No.2 operates and manages the e-commerce marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale and OP No.2 exercise no influence or interference in the said process.

12.              In order to support his above contentions, complainant produced one Pen Drive as Mark-A, on the case file and stated that this Pen Drive contains a video, which was prepared by him, at the time of opening the said box, which was received by him from the OPs. The said Pen Drive has been attached with the computer system of this Commission today and found that there is one video in that Pen Drive and by playing the said video, we found that one person opened a sealed envelope and found one box in it and on opening the said box, there is only found one charger with its lead. There was no mobile phone in that box. Moreover, the complainant has also produced that one envelope having one box in it as Mark-B, on the case fie, which was found in that sealed envelope and found empty containing only one charter with its lead. However, there is affixed/pasted one bill on the said envelope, wherein name and address of complainant namely Ramphal is also mentioned. However, that envelope contains one box in it and after opening the said box, we found that it contains only one charger with its lead. So, from seeing the said video in Pen Drive Mark-A as well the envelope/box Mark-B, the contentions of the complainant that the box, which was received by him from the OPs by courier, was containing only one charger plus lead and there was no mobile phone in it, has force.

13.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as after watching the above-mentioned videos of Pen Drive Mark-A, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant had made online order for purchasing a Redmi Note 9 mobile phone online through OPs, in the sum of Rs.11998/-, but when the complainant found the courier of said mobile phone and opened the box in it, he could not found the mobile phone in it, rather one charger with its lead was there. By not delivering the mobile phone, even after receiving its cost price of Rs.11,998/-, by the OPs, amounts to gross deficiency as well as unfair trade practice, on the part of OPs, for which, the OPs not only liable to refund the cost of mobile phone amounting to Rs.11998/-, but also liable to pay the compensation amount and litigation expenses, to the complainant.

14.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct both the OPs, jointly and severally, refund the cost price of mobile in question amounting to Rs.11,998/-, subject matter of Tax Invoice Annexure R-5 along with lump-sum amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation + litigation expenses, to the complainant. The OPs are directed to make compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry the interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this filing the present complaint, till its actual realization.

15.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.06.05.2024.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, SSS.