DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 50   of   2021

 

 

Sri Pallab Nag,

S/O- Lt. Malay Kanti Nag,

119-Bijoykumar Chowmuhani, Krishnanagar,

S.B.I. Regional Office, Agartala(part),

Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.    .............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Global Senior Vice President and 

Country Head of Amazon India,

Amazon.in, Amazon India, 

Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1 Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore- 560055,

Karnataka, India.

 

2. The Manager,

Amazon Service, Agartala,

Dhaleswar, Road No.13, 

Near UBI, Blue Lotus Club Chowmuhani,

East P.S., Agartala,

P.O. Dhaleswar,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3. Chief Executive Officer, 

OPPO India, 5th Floor, Tower 8,

Building No.8, DFL Cyber City,

Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002,  India. 

 

4. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited,

Having its registered address at 

Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 

26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, 

Malleswaram(w), Bangalore- 560055,

Karnataka. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

   

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. 1 & 2 : Sri Amritlal Saha,

 

For the O.P. No.4 : Exparte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. The complainant Pallab Nag filed this complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the O.Ps namely Global Senior Vice President and Country Head of Amazon India, Amazon.in, Amazon India, Bangalore, Karnataka, India,(in short “O.P. No.1”),  The Manager, Amazon Service, Agartala, Dhaleswar(in short “O.P.No.2”), Chief Executive Officer, OPPO India, Gurgaon, Haryana(in short “O.P. No.3”), Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka(in short “O.P. No.4”) alleging inter alia that she booked mobile phone OPPO RENO 5 PRO 5G (Starry Black) from Amazon.in on 24.02.2021 for an amount of Rs.35,990/- through online advance payment.

1.2 On 02.03.2021 one delivery boy handed over a sealed packet to the complainant and on opening the sealed packet the complainant found that the mobile phone set of inferior quality was delivered which might not be above the amount of Rs.6,000/- of Nokia Brand. The complainant immediately communicated the Amazon.in customer care  contact number and accordingly Amazon.in initiated replacement order.

1.3 On 04.03.2021 the complainant received Message from Amazon.in that his order will be delivered on 09.03.2021. However, on 10.03.2021 one delivery boy of Amazon.in received back the Nokia Mobile phone set from the complainant for replacement and delivered another sealed packet. But opening the sealed packet the complainant found 2 nos. phone back cover and one phone battery but no mobile phone set. 

1.4 Immediately the complainant contacted the Amazon.in Customer Care on 10.03.2021  and 11.03.2021 but to no good. Hence, on 11.03.2021 the complainant lodged FIR with West Agartala P.S. On 12.03.2021 the complainant sent Email also and in response thereto the Amazon.in communicated a regret letter dated 15.03.2021 through Email stating that they had investigated the matter and packet containing the item was intact until delivery hence, Amzaon.in would not be able to provide replacement or refund the money.

1.5 Hence this case.

 

2. The O.Ps in written objection stated inter ali that Amazon is a E-platform and not responsible for any deficiency in the product for which the company manufacturer of the product was responsible. Hence, since the complainant has not impleaded the 3rd party seller i.e., Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. as party, the complaint is not maintainable.

2.1 Amzaon.in further pleaded that they took up the issue with Appario retail Pvt. Ltd. to which it was confirmed that the product had been delivered to the complainant intact. It is further pleaded that the Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. informed that the packet returned by the complainant to receive replacement order was empty as such the complainant practiced fraud by not returning the product originally delivered to him. Further the complainant no where pleaded that the replacement packet delivered to him was tampered with or that he had not received the said product in a duly sealed original factory packaging. Hence, the allegations of the complainant that a different product was delivered is not tenable in this matter. 

2.3 Rishab Baid Vs. Country Head(Managing Director) vide case No. 402/ 2018 decided by the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Rederessal Forum, Hyderabad  relied on by the O.P. that any person who receives a parcel intact should open it in the presence of the person who deliver it and only on satisfaction one can sign on the delivery report.  

2.4 The case proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.3 vide order dated 10.11.2021 as the O.P. No.3 after getting sufficient opportunity failed to submit their written version.

2.5 The case also proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.4 vide order order dated 13.05.2022 as the O.P. failed to appear and contest the case.

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence and documents namely downloaded copy of order detail( Annexure -1), Shipping Confirmation,  photographs of unpacked Nokia Phone(Annexure-3),  Order Detial(Annexure-4), shipping confirmation(Annexure-5),  Photographs of phone cover and battery(Annexure-6),  Letter to the O/C, West Police, Station, West Tripura(Annexure-7), Letter to the Amzaon.in(Annexure-8), copy of Gmail(Annexure-9), copy of Gmail(Annexure-10).

3.1 The O.P. did not adduce any evidence. 

 

4. During the course of argument the complainant substantiated his complaint and the O.Ps took the stand as alleged in their written objection.

 

5. The following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

6. All the points are taken up together for convenience.

6.1 It is admitted fact that the mobile was booked by the complainant through Amazon.in. It is also admitted fact that the item was delivered to the complainant but the  the product received by the complainant was not as per the order/ booked item in fact it was a Nokia phone which has been substantiated by the complainant by producing documentary evidence (Annexure- 3).

6.2 It is pleaded by the O.P. that internal investigation by Amazon.in with the 3rd party retailer that the original packet of the company was delivered to the complainant but no document produced by the O.P. to prove that the matter has been investigated with the 3rd party seller.  

6.3 No evidence produced to prove that at the time receiving the packet from the complainant empty packet was handed over by the complainant to the delivery boy. No document also produced to show that the Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. informed that the packet returned by the complainant to receive replacement order was empty. If Amazon.in received any such written information from the 3rd party seller onus to prove this fact lies upon them to prove such letter. Otherwise such stand of Amazon.in can't be legally entertained to discard the case of the complainant. Hence, the O.P. fails to substantiate their contention.

6.4 We have gone through the documents submitted by the complainant. All the documents i.e., the invoice, photo graphs, letter to the O/C, West P.S., letter to the Amazon.in, emails, reply of emails etc. shows that the O.P. delivered a cheaper phone in place of the ordered item i.e., the OPPO RENO 5 PRO 5G. Also at the time of replacing the  the Nokia phone the O.P. sent 2 phone back cover and one phone battery which is beyond expectation from the O.P. Hence, the O.P. Amazon.in practiced fraud upon the complainant and also guilty of deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant had no transaction directly or indirectly with the Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. the alleged 3rd Party Seller. Hence, O.P. Amazon.in is liable to compensate the complainant. 

 

7. In the result, we direct the O.P. Amazon.in  to refund Rs.35,990/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety), the price of the Mobile phone with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of booking i.e., from 24.02.2021 till the date of actual payment. And an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation including litigation cost. It shall bear interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment unless paid within 30(thirty) days from today.

 

8. The case stands disposed off. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.