BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 452/2021
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Rep. through its authorized signatory, Mr. Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel, Duly authorized by Sri Rakesh Mohan Bakshi, Director – Legal, Who has been authorized by a board resolution dt.22.09.2014 and that the appellant company has its registered office at : Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, No.26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560 055. (By Sri Diwakar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Mr. Ghouse Pasha, Proprietor of M/s Agribuzz Services, Aged about 35 years, No.1, 18/6, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Wilson Garden, Hosur Road, Bengaluru 560 027. | …Respondent/s |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.22.03.2021 passed in CC.No.786/2019 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as under;
It is the case of the complainant that the he had placed an order with the Opposite Party Amazon online services to purchase DARLING 2TB USB 3.0 flash drive by paying Rs.3,310/- on 07.09.2018 by swiping his master card online to the account of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party ought to have dispatched the said material on or before 22.09.2018. Till date of filing of the complaint, it is contended that the said material was not sent by the Opposite Party to the complainant. Intentionally the Opposite Party is avoiding phone calls of the complainant whenever an attempt was made. Even Opposite Party also did not send back the amount and failed to deliver the product which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. For which the complainant sent a legal notice, but, the Opposite Party has not complied, hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through its counsel and filed its version and contended that it only provides platform on online market place were independent third party suggest the list of their products for sale. They neither sell nor offer any products. The seller themselves are responsible for respective listing and their products on their website. It has denied each and every allegation made against it in the allegation. The refund has been made from nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines. The nodal account facilitates collection and deposit of funds from buyer to be credited to the sellers account/refunded back to the buyer as per the regulatory process for ecommerce transaction. There is no amount pending with them in respect of the complainant. Any issue regarding non-receipt of the refund is with the concerned bank and not with this Opposite Party and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.3,310/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 22.09.2018, till payment along damages and costs.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant on admission.
6. On perusal of the appeal memo and the Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant placed an Order with the Opposite Party by paying Rs.3,310/- to purchase darling 2TB USB 3.0 flash drive one quantity by swiping his credit card and the amount has been paid to the Opposite Party and the same was dispatched on 19.09.2018 and delivered on or before 22.09.2018. The appellant in appeal memo and in his objection in lower court contended that it only provides platform online market place where an independent third party suggests the list of their products for sale and they neither sell nor offer any products. Moreover, the refund has been from nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines. The Nodal account facilitates collection and deposit of funds from buyers to be credited to the sellers account/refunded back to the buyers and there is no amount pending with this in respect of the complainant.
7. We agree that the Opposite Party provides platform online market place where an independent third party suggests the list of their products for sale. The Amazon.in is the type of E-Commerce website and it is B to C (Business to Consumer) which is typically used refer to at line retailers who sell the products and services through online. The platform online market place would suggest the third party seller to disclose to consumers basic information including the sellers name, business, address, email address, phone number etc. It also would provide strong consumer protection measures because harmed consumers will be able to identify and track down at third party sellers using the required confirmed seller information. Anyhow market place is should not been shielded from liability as they complying more than passive roles in the sales made by the third party sellers on their platforms. Hence, failing to classify online marketing places as sellers and allowing and avoidance of liability is crushing the ability for consumers to effective means of precourse when they have purchased products online a fundamental component of consumer protection. It is the sale responsibility of online market place to transport the items/ goods to the consumers in safe condition and in case it was not delivered to the consumer, refund the money as early as possible. Moreover, there is no nexus between Consumer and third party seller. Moreover, the Opposite Party contended that the refund has been made from Nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines, nodal account facility collection and deposit of funds from buyer to credited to the sellers account or refunded back to the buyer as per the regulatory process for E-Commerce transaction.
8. Here in the present case, the amount was transferred by the complainant to the account which was shown in Amazon.in by his credit card. However, the Opposite Party has not produced any single document before the lower court to show that the item was delivered to the complainant and there is also no any receipt produced by the Opposite Party towards the amount refunded by them to the complainant. Moreover as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Sec.2 (vii) product liability action lies against the product manufacturer, product seller or product service provider as the case may be. Hence, considering the facts and on going to the through the Order passed by the District Commission, in our opinion the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. We do not find any merits in this appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
