Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/876/2016

Lovekesh Allawadhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/876/2016
Date of Institution	:	28/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	22/11/2017

 

 

Lovekesh Allawadhi resident of C-98, CSIO Colony, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (UT).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Managing Director, Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055 India (E-retailer).

2.     Proprietor, Dolphin Innovations, G-93, Ground Floor, Raisar Plaza, Indra Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India (Seller) [Deleted vide order dated 6.2.2017].

3.     Managing Director, Fedex India, Boomerang, Unit No.801, Wings A & B1, 8^th Floor, Chandivali Farm Road, Near Chandivali Studio, Andheri (E), Mumbai (shipper)

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Mohit Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 deleted.
	:	None for OP-3.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 3.6.2016, the complainant placed an order for a USB device viz. Quantum Slim USB 2.0 High Speed Hub 4 Port from Amazon India and received a confirmation email on the same date after making advance payment. On 6.6.2016, the said order was shown as delivered on the Amazon India website account after impersonating the complainant’s signature by the courier delivery agent. As per the complainant, he has not received the consignment till date.  The complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to amend the wrong, but, no steps were taken by them despite service of legal notice dated 29.8.2016.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written statement has admitted that the complainant placed an order for the product on 3.6.2016 and the same was delivered to him on 6.6.2016.  It has been denied that the order was shown as delivered on the website of OP-1 by impersonating the complainant’s signature. It has been stated that prior to the receipt of notice dated 30.8.2016, no complaint was ever made to  OP-1. Even the said notice was also duly replied on 6.10.2016.  It has been contended that OP-1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides a technology, an online marketplace to the sellers and buyers of the products. It merely acts as a facilitator and cannot be made liable for the actions/inactions of the third party sellers. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In view of the endorsement made by the complainant on the title of the consumer complaint, name of OP-2 was deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 6.2.2017.
4.         OP-3 in its separate written statement has also admitted that the complainant placed an order for the product in question which was shipped on 3.6.2016 to the shipping address of the complainant as directed by OP-1.  The complainant raised concern on 7.6.2016 with OP-3 regarding non receipt of the consignment upon which it registered the complaint and investigated the matter. It tried to find out the person who took the consignment in a fraudulent manner, but, neither the person nor the consignment were traced.  It conveyed the said findings to the complainant and requested him to file claim with OP-1.  It has been denied that OP-3 is entitled to pay any amount to the complainant either by way of refund of freight invoice or compensation as there exists no privity of contract between them. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.
5.         Separate rejoinders were filed by the complainant denying the averments in the respective written statements of OPs 1 & 3.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned proxy Counsel for OP-1.
8.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that he placed an order for a USB device viz. Quantum Slim USB 2.0 High Speed Hub 4 Port from OP-1 and received a confirmation email on the same date after making advance payment.  But, till date, neither the delivery of the courier has been made nor he has been refunded the price of the said product despite service of a legal notice (annexed at as Annexure C-4 at page 12 of the paperbook).
9.         The stand taken by OP-1/Amazon India, is that no complaint was ever made to it prior to the notice.  It has been contended that it neither sells nor offers to sell any product and merely provides a technology, an online market place to the sellers and buyers of the products.  It being a facilitator cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service.  Hence, the complaint needs to be dismissed qua it.
10.         On the other hand, the courier shipping company/OP-3 has admitted that the order was shipped to the complainant as directed by OP-1. On the report of the complainant, the matter was investigated, but, neither the person who took delivery of the consignment nor the consignment could be traced and the complainant had been requested to file a claim before OP-1/Amazon India. 
11.         A perusal of the file and the written statements of OP-1 and OP-3 make it clear that the order was duly placed by making an advance payment of Rs.165/- towards the purchase of the product in question, which is also evident from Annexure P-3 (annexed at page 21 by OP-3). The copy of the delivery information (annexed at page 26 of the written statement of OP-1) makes it clear that the product was duly delivered on 6.6.2016 at 16:25 hrs. by OP-3 company to the complainant. However, it is OP-3/courier company which has taken a contradictory stand stating that it has investigated the matter, but, neither the person nor the consignment could be traced and on the other hand it has been stated that it does not have any liability for any deficiency in service in non-delivering the consignment. We are of the opinion that it is OP-3 only which has been appointed by OP-1 to make the safe delivery of the product in question to the complainant.  Admittedly, the product could not be handed over to the complainant as per the commitment of OPs 1 & 3. Hence, the act of OPs 1 & 3 for non-delivering the ordered product to the complainant, despite taking advance payment, and later on non-responding to the genuine request of the complainant for redressal of his grievance proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which certainly has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs 1 & 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the amount of invoice value i.e. Rs.165/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 3 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member