Delhi

North East

CC/80/2019

Sh. Manish Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Amazon Seller Service Limited Private Limited & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 80/19

 

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Manish Gupta S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta R/o 1/3351 Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	M/s Amazon Seller Service Ltd. Private Ltd. & Ors, Office Address-Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram, Banglore-560055   M/s Green Mobiles 196 T-extension Visvas Park, Uttam Nagar West, New Delhi, Delhi-110059	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

09.08.19 01.02.23 28.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a mobile phone online by cash on delivery from Opposite Party No.1 vide order no. 406-5333764-9525914 dated 20.09.18 for a sum of Rs. 9,999/-. The Complainant stated that no replacement of product was available with Opposite Party only refund option was available and return request was created for pick up of product dated 25.09.18. The mobile phone in question was picked up by Opposite Party on 30.09.18 vide tracking no. 710802303185 within prescribed period but the money was not refunded back to Complainant. The Complainant stated that he had filed so many complaints to customer care of amazon india for refunding his money but Opposite Party gave so many excuses out of which main excuse was that they were not able to track the article in their ware house. The Opposite Party and its agent gave assurance to Complainant that the amount will be refunded within 7 days of complaint but after that Opposite Party flately refused to refund the money of Complainant. The Complainant stated that he had served a legal notice to Opposite Party dated 24.01.19 and the Complainant had also received the reply from Opposite Party in which Opposite Party had refused to refund the amount of Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 9,999/- and Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2.  None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 06.12.21.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 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 (and not ASSPL) 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 conditions relating to the customer’s use of the website (as expressly available on the Website) and specifically agreed by the customers clearly stated that ASSPL is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to or control in any matter any sale transaction on the website. The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly a bipartite contract between the customer and the seller.
4. It is also stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the goods have been bought by the Complainant from the independent third party seller selling its products on the Website operated by ASSPL.  Accordingly, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” vis- a- vis ASSPL.
5. That admittedly, the subject matter of dispute is restricted to non-receipt of refund from the seller post alleged return in respect of Honor 7 C blue(5.99 inch, full view display 32 GB) purchased by the Complainant on 20.09.18 vide order id 406-5333764-9525914 from an independent third party seller i.e. Green Mobiles on the Website. The instant complaint is bad-in-law, which cannot be sustained qua ASSPL, which is only a facilitator, where buyers and sellers meet independent of any intervention by ASSPL. It is submitted that ASSPL has been unnecessarily and wrongly arrayed as a party to the complaint without any cause of action. Accordingly, this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to delete ASSPL from the array of parties, being unnecessary. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and ASSPL has unnecessarily and wrongly been arrayed as a party to the complaint without any cause of action.
6. Nowhere in the complaint has the Complainant demonstrated, alleged and/or established any fact which points out any act of deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practices by ASSPL.
7. It is submitted that after the delivery of the product, the Complainant  contacted ASSPL on 21.09.18 alleging receipt of defective product from the seller and requested for the assistance of ASSPL in getting the replacement/refund from the seller. Accordingly, ASSPL provided best possible assistance to the Complainant and a return was initiated on the order. It is further submitted that the Complainant was requested and required to return the product to the seller in order to get the refund. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the return pick up created was cancelled by the Complainant end. It is further submitted that since the Complainant failed to return the product to the seller, ASSPL was not able to provide any further assistance to the Complainant in getting the refund from the seller. Further, the return label/document filed by the Complainant are disputed and denied by ASSPL and the Complainant be put to strict proof of the same.
8. It is submitted that the Complainant has neither purchased the product from ASSPL nor has the Complainant paid any amount/consideration to ASSPL and therefore the Complainant is not a “Consumer” qua ASSPL.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

9. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

10. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

11. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Ms. Swati Aggarwal, AR for Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

12. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Complainant and Opposite Party No1. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone online by cash on delivery from the Opposite Party No.1 on 20.09.18 for a sum of Rs. 9,999/-. The Complainant stated that since there were no replacement of product was available with the Opposite Party only refund option was available and return request was created for pick up of product on 25.09.18. The mobile phone in question was picked up by the Opposite Party No.1 on 30.09.18 within the prescribed period but the money was not refund to the Complainant. The Complainant further stated that he had filed so many complaints to the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 for refunding of his money but Opposite Party gave so many excuses out of which main excuse was that they were not able to track the article in their ware house. The Opposite Party and its agent gave assurance to Complainant that the amount will be refunded within 7 days of complaint but after that Opposite Party flately refused to refund the money of Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
13. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that they 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. Opposite Party No.1 is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 subject matter of dispute is restricted to non-receipt of refund from the seller post alleged return in respect of said mobile phone purchased by the Complainant on 20.09.18. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant contacted them on 21.09.18 alleging receipt of defective product from the seller and requested for the assistance of the Opposite Party No.1 for getting the replacement/refund from the seller. It is further submitted that the Complainant was requested and required to return the product to the seller in order to get the refund. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the return pick up created was cancelled by the Complainant, since the Complainant failed to return the product to the seller, Opposite Party No.1 was not able to provide any further assistance to the Complainant in getting the refund from the seller. And Opposite Party No.1 stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part.  
14. It is clear from the document submitted by the Complainant that product was pick up by agent of Opposite Party No.1 on 30.09.18. Opposite Party No.1 failed to provide any evidence regarding cancellation of pick up request by the Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
15. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 9,999/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
16. Order announced on 28.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President