2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that ASSPL neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. ASSPL is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does ASSPL intervene or influence any customers in any manner. ASSPL is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. The complainant alleged that he placed an order for one JKC Fingerprint Inkless Pad 3” * 5” (3” * 5” ) bearing order ID no.402-6260985-2365908 from the seller on the Website of OP on June 05, 2016 and it was delivered to the complainant b y the estimated delivery date of June 11, 2016. Though the website is managed and operated by the OP no.1, but the transaction is between the seller and buyer which is governed by “Conditions of Use” enumerated on the website of OP no.1. It is further stated that in case of receipt of a defective or a damaged product, the customer is eligible for a free replacement within 10 days from Delivery Date. The complainant received the product, he discovered that the product was damaged. The complainant never contacted the Customer Service Team of OP regarding issues with the Product within the return window period. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.
3. OP no.2 filed its separate written statement stating therein that the complainant has never contacted OP no.2 directly on the phone or otherwise for the replacement or refund of the product i.e. JKC Fingerprint Inkless Pad 3” * 5” (3” * 5” ). It is further stated that if the product was found to be defective, the complainant could have easily return the product or taken the refund for the same by Amazon as per their ten days retrun policy. It is further stated that OP no.2 tried to contact the complainant on 8.7.2016 on his mobile no.9896508596 which went unanswered for settlement of the dispute. It is further stated that without prejudice if the complainant would have contact OP no.2, the OP no.2 would have easily replace the damage i.e. JKC Fingerprint Inkless Pad 3” * 5” (3” * 5” ) after receiving the damaged product from the complainant. Hence there was not deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and EX.C/A1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 28.7.2017.
5. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundaram Ex.OP1/Aand documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP4. OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gaurav Ex.O2/A and closed their evidence on 24.10.2017 and 5.3.2018 respectively.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. According to the complainant, on 5.6.2016 he ordered JKC Fingerprint Inkless Pad 3” * 5” (3” * 5” ) and paid the price of Rs.2300/- on delivery on 8.6.2016. It is further the case of the complainant that as soon as the complainant opened the packet he found the product completely damaged, the ink was dried and it completely failed to match with the description provided on the website of the OP no.1. It is further alleged that the complainant came to know through the stickers affixed on the fingerprint pad and from the parcel packet that the same has been shipped from and by Mr. Gaurav i.e. OP no.2. Feeling cheated, the complainant contacted the OP no.2 on telephone but OP no.2 flatly refused to entertain and told to contact OP no.1. Then on 26.6.2016, the complainant contacted OP no.1 on toll free number, who also refused to entertain the grievance of the complainant. It is further alleged that during the telephonic conversion between complainant and OP no.1, the OP no.1 gave reply which is mentioned in sub paras of para no.10 of the complaint. The complainant served legal notice dated 27.6.2016 upon the OPs.
8. The OP no.1 contended that OP no.1 neither sells nor offers to sell any product and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their product. It is further contended that as per return policy of OP no.1, in case of receipt of defective or damaged product, the customer is eligible for a free replacement within 10 days from delivery date. The complainant never contacted the OP no.1 within return window period i.e. 10 days from the delivery date, so the OP no.1 is not liable for replacement. The OP no.1 could have assisted the complainant only if he reported the issue within 10 days.
9. The OP no.2 contended on the similar line as contended OP no.1. The OP no.2 also contended that complainant never contacted OP no.2 directly on phone or otherwise for replacement of the product.
10. From the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has not contacted the OP no.1 within 10 days from the delivery date. Admittedly, the product was delivered on 8.6.2016 and the complainant contacted the OP no.1 on 26.6.2016 i.e. after 18 days of delivery date. It has also been admitted by the complainant in sub para (b) of para no.10 of the complaint wherein the conversation with OP no.1 on telephone is mentioned. Sub para 10(b) runs as under:-
“It has also been told to complainant that since he failed to raise a complaint within 10 days after the delivery of the product therefore they will not replace/return the said product.”
From the above, it is clear t hat the complainant has not contacted the OP no.1 within 10 days (the return window period). As alleged by the complainant that when he (complainant opened the packet, he found the product completely damaged, so the complainant was duty bound to contact the OP no.1 within the return window period i.e. 10 days for the replacement of the product but the complainant has not contacted the OP no.1 within said period. The fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint that he had contacted the OP no.1 on 26.6.2016, whereas the product was received by the complainant on 8.6.2016. Therefore, the complainant himself was on default. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.
10. In view of the above discussions, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 17.04.2018
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Anil Sharma)
Member
