Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/543/2020

Rikash Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harikrushna Communication - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/543/2020
Date of Institution	:	14/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	09/10/2024

       

                                       

                       

 

 

Rikash Goel S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o Plot No.35, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

VERSUS

1.     Harikrushna Communication, Wh-10, Crystal Indus Logistics Park, Bhayla Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382220.

2.     Bharat Enterprises, Through its proprietor/partner/ director, Shop No.47/1, Village Buterela, Sector 41, Chandigarh-160040.

3.     Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Registered Office- Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India.

4.     Intex Technologies (India) Limited through its Managing Director/Company Secretary having its office at First Address - Intex Technologies (P) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II, New Delhi 110020, India, Second Address- A-61 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi South Delhi DL 110020 IN.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY:
	Complainant in person.
	OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 ex-parte
	Sh. Chetan Gupta, Counsel for OP-3

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that attracted by the advertisement on the website of OP-3, he purchased a power bank (white colour) from OP-1 vide invoice (Annexure C-1) on payment of ₹770/-.  However, till September 2020, complainant did not use the said power bank for more than 3-4 times and on 26.9.2020 when he went to Himachal Pradesh and tried to use it for the purpose of charging his mobile phone, it did not start. On 28.9.2020, complainant approached OP-2 regarding the defective and second hand product sold to him and it gave receipt (Annexure C-3) but told that the company would not change it with a new one. The complainant served the OPs with legal notice but with no success.  On 10.10.2020, complainant received SMS on his mobile that he can collect his product as the job sheet had been closed and when he called at the mobile No. given on the job sheet, he was told that he can collect new one under exchange.   However, on 12.10.2020, when the complainant visited the service centre (OP-2), the concerned official tried to hand over old, scratched and used power bank instead of new one.  When the complainant resisted, OPs refused to hand over the previously submitted old power bank or the new power bank in its place. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.        Notice sent to OP-1 was received back with the remarks ‘refusal’ and when none put in appearance on its behalf before this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.3.2021.
3.        Notice sent to OP-2 was received back with the remarks ‘refusal’ and when none put in appearance on its behalf before this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5.1.2021.
4.        In its written version OP-3 averred that it operates and manages the e-commerce marketplace wherein independent third party sellers list their products for sale and any seller is free to list any product for sale and any buyer is free to choose and order any product from any independent third party seller selling that product on marketplace. The answering OP has no influence or interference in the said process. The product was sold to the account holder by independent third party seller i.e. OP-1 and even the consideration was paid to it by the account holder. It is further averred that only manufacturer (OP-4) or the third party seller are responsible for warranty/guarantee/repair and replacement of the product. It is maintained that the answering OP is not manufacturer of the products listed on the e-commerce marketplace and it is only an intermediary and, therefore, not liable for third party content on its marketplace. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
5.        Despite due service, OP-4 did not put in appearance before this Commission and accordingly it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.1.2023.
6.        The contesting parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
7.        In replication, complainant controverted the stand of OP-3 and reiterated his own.
8.        We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for OP-3 and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
9.        It is observed from the record that the complainant had purchased a power bank from OP-1 vide invoice dated 22.7.2020 (Annexure C-1) through the portal of OP-3 by making payment of ₹770/- and the same developed defect within the warranty period. Annexure C-3 is copy of service request/job sheet dated 28.9.2020 (i.e. just after a little over two months) vide which the said product was handed over to the OPs for repair and the same clearly indicates its warranty status as “in warranty”.  However, despite of the fact that the product was well within warranty period, OPs neither repaired the same nor replaced it with a new one, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
10.        OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission. This act of OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 draws adverse inference against them. The non appearance of OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 is proved.
11.        However, so far as the claim of the complainant against OP-3/Amazon India is concerned, once it is clear that OP-3 is merely an intermediary, it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 and the consumer complaint qua it deserves to be dismissed.
12.        In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 are directed to refund the invoice price of the power bank i.e. ₹770/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 22.7.2020 (i.e. date of purchase) till the date of its actual realization. OP-1, OP-2 & OP-4 shall also pay lump sum compensation of ₹5,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him.
13.        This order be complied with by OP-1, OP-2 &
    OP-4 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
14.        Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-3, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
15.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
16.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED 09/10/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA] MEMBER