Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is that the product was purchased from a third party seller. First opposite party never came in possession of the actually ordered product or the alleged different product supplied. The complaint raised by the complainant was duly forwarded to the second opposite party seller. The complainant provided address proof and driving licence and the same was forwarded to the second opposite party. The seller demanded more details but on request, the complainant failed to provide the requested details.
The first opposite party is only the online market place e-commerce entity and is not liable for the acts of the seller, the second opposite party. The first opposite party had not charged any amount being the consideration for using the online platform from the complainant. The first opposite party is not liable for the defective delivery of the product.
As per the version of the second opposite party, the ordered laptop Acer Aspire 7 Core i5, 9th Gen. was duly delivered to the complainant without delay in a sealed packed box as provided by the manufacturer. When the complainant raised his grievances, the complainant was asked to provide id proof. The complainant provided driving licence as proof. Then some more documents were requested from the complainant. But the complainant failed to provide the required documents. The second opposite party does not have the power to open the parcel received from the manufacturer and tocheck whether the parcel contains the same product as ordered or not. If a wrong / damaged / missing product has been packed in the parcel by the manufacturer the reseller would remain unaware of the contents of the parcel. The retailer cannot be held liable for the defect in the good / product. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exts.A1 to A6.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had given an order for an Acer Aspire 7 Core i5, 9th Gen laptop computer through the online platform th Gen for total amount Rs.53,890/-.
The complainant on the same day registered a complaint for the return of the product with return id12202199321803914071 on the website. The return request was rejected on 21-06-2021 without giving any reason.
Ext.A1 is the tax invoice No.FAAAAB2200495816 for the order ID:0D22194799640738100 dated 02-06-2021 for the product Acer Aspire 7 Core i5,9th Gen (8GB/512 GB SSD/Windows)10 Home/4 GB Graphics / NVIDA Ge Force GTx1650 T A715-75G51H 8 Gaming laptop and total amount is Rs.53,890/-.
Ext.A5 is the copy of the backside of the delivered laptop box. In Ext.A5, it is written that the product is marketed by 1-life Digital Technology, Commodity is Note book, model Name Zed Air Cx3 with model no.IL1506x4GIT256 WIEAB MRP : 34999/-
Ongoing through Ext.A1 and Ext.A5, it is clear that the product delivered is not the product ordered by the complainant and paid for. Even though the complainant registered the Return Request on the same day itself that was rejected without giving any reason on 21-06-2021.
Sec.4(3), (5) and section 6(1) (3) and Section 8 of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rule 2020 read as follows.
Section 4(3) – No e-commerceentity shall adopt any unfair trade practice, whether in the course of business on its platform or otherwise.
Section 4(5) – Every e-commerce entity shall ensure that the grievance officer referred to in sub-rule (4) acknowledges the receipt of any consumer complaint within forty-eight hours and redresses the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.
Section 6(1) No seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice whether in the course of the offer on the e-commerce entity’s platform or otherwise.
Section 6(3) – No seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity shall refuse to take back goods, or withdraw or discontinue services purchased or agreed to be purchased, or refuse to refund consideration, if paid, if such goods or services are defective, deficient or spurious, or if the goods or services are not of the characteristics or features as advertised or as agreed to, or if such goods or services are delivered late from the stated delivery schedule:
Provided that in the case of late delivery, this sub-rule shall not be applied if such late delivery was due to force majeure.
Section 8 – Contravention of rules – The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (35 of 2019) shall apply for any violation of the provisions of these rules.
From the above discussed evidence, it is clear that the complainant was supplied a different and inferior quality laptop on 07-06-2021 by the opposite parties and the request of the complainant for the return of the product was rejected by the first opposite party website. The version of the first opposite party that being an intermediary the grievance raised by the complainant was escalated to the 2nd opposite party. But the responsibility of the 1st opposite party E-commerce market place entity is not limited in just forwarding the grievance of the complainant to the 2ndopposite party. The first opposite party is legally bound to make sure that the grievance of the complainant is sorted out within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint. The request of the complainant for the return of the product registered on 07-06-2021 itself was rejected by the first opposite party on 21-06-2021. The version of the first opposite party is that being an intermediary in the e-commerce transaction the grievance raised by the complainant was duly escalated to the 2nd opposite party seller. The responsibility of the e-commerce market place entity opposite party No.1 is not limited in just forwarding the grievance of the complainant to the seller. The first opposite party is legally bound to make sure that the grievance of the complainant is sorted out within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.
The act of the opposite party No.1 and 2 is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the acts. Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. The complaint is allowed and we pass the following Orders.
- The opposite parties are directed to deliver an Acer Aspire 7 Core i5, 9th Gen (8GB/512 GB SSD/Windows) laptop or to pay Rs.53,890/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this Order.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- being the compensation for the sufferings and mental agony to the complainant with cost Rs.2,000/-
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, in default the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of this Order till realization.
Pronounce in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of June, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.02-06-2021 issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of legal notice dtd.22-06-2021
A3 – Copy of letter dtd.30-06-2021 issued by Tech-Retail Private Limited
A4–Copy of letter dtd.03-08-21 to Adv. C.C. Suresh by opposite party
A5- Copy of the backside of the delivered laptop box.
A6- Copy of order information issued by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
