District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 242/2020.
Date of Institution:10.08.2020.
Date of Order:29.03.2023.
Mr. Shariq Ansari, House No. 990, Sector-23, Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana – 121005.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Ltd. Sales site (amazoin.in) Prime
Reg. off. At Amazon World Trade Center – Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 26/1, Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore – 560 055, Karnataka, India.
2. Mr. Lalit Chandanmal Jain, Shop No.11, Ist floor, Chiplunkar Building No.4, Tara Temple Lane, Lamington Road, Grant Road – East, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 007.
3. One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited, Registered office at B-24, Manubharati, Azad Lane, Off S.V.Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058.
Service be effected by its Manager
…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Azam Ali, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 exparte vide order dated 14.10.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone vide order No. 407-9989770-9201904 dated 19.02.2020 of make Huawei Mate 30 Pro having space with 8GB, 256 GB with silver color code NO. B07YZRFR5K by opposite party No.1 through sales site amazon.in Prime total amounting to Rs.73,725/- and estimate date of delivery was given 23.02.2020. Accordingly the said phone was delivered by opposite party No.1 through invoice No. IN-3234 dated 19.02.2020 Rs.73,725/- issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. The complainant also purchased a membership policy for the above mobile protection for one year which was activated from 05.03.2020 to 4.03.2021 and after verifying each and every facts regarding the said mobile phone by the official team of the opposite party No.3, the opposite party No.3 approved and issued the membership to the complainant vide ID-1006957718 by charging its costs of Rs.5439.2 which had been duly paid by the complainant through net banking process system. After receipt the premium of the said policy, the opposite party No.3 issued the policy/membership ID details with terms and conditions of risk covered of said mobile phone make HUAWEI MATE 30 PRO Serial NO. 8652050421309590 in which the insurance cover against accidental and liquid damages etc. In the month/last week of April, 2020 the said screen of the said mobile pone’s accidently damaged. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties by mail as well as telephonically Accordingly, the opposite parties after completing the necessary procedures and unwanted hassles the documents of the said phones got duly verified and received the said phone on 27.04.2020 for repair/replace the screen of the said phone form the complainant for their technical expert. At the same time, it was committed that the said phone would be returned after repair between 02.05.2020 to 07.05.2020 but even after expiry of the said period no response received from the side of the opposite parties. On 10.06.2020 the complainant received a mail form opposite party No.3 vide which the claim of the complainant was denied on
baseless reason and quarries about the said phone by saying that “his phone could not be re4paired as the model was overseas.”. However, it was not mentioned in terms and conditions of the policy that if the mobile phone be of overseas brand then the claim could be rejected, whereas at the time of issuing the policy each and everything facts of the said mobile phone was duly verified by the opposite party No.3 and after verification report, the opposite party No.3 received the premium but now were trying to back out from its contract even after 3-4 months had been passed. Ultimately on the same day i.e.10.06.2020 their client sent a mail and replied the entire baseless quarries of opposite party No.3 and submitted that the said phone was duly purchased from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 thereby proper booking channels of the sales site of amazon.in prime and proper taxes had been paid by the complainant as per invoice charges. Thereafter the complainant made several requests to opposite parties by mails to clear the claim registered as SR/6008767 of said mobile phone but day by day false assurances were given from their side and finally the opposite party No.3 rejected the said claim either for repair the same or to pay its cost/damages charges on 16.06.2020. The complainant sent legal notice dated 20.06.2020 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) award for total loss/damages amount of Rs.73725/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1. put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had placed an order to purchase a mobile handset i.e. “Huwawei Mate 30 Pro, 8GB, 256GB, Dual sim (Space Silver) B07YZRFR5K (mate30s)” (referred to as “Mobile Phone”) vide order NO. 407-9989770-9201904 on 19.02.2020 from the independent third party seller i.e. Lalit Chandanmal Jai n having its registered address at Shop No.11, Ist flor, Chipplunker Bldg. No.4, Tara a Temple Lane, Lamington Road,, Grant Road East Mumbai which was listed on the e-commerce marketplace operated by ASSPL/answering opposite party. Against order for the phone, a tax invoice bearing NO. IN-3234 dated 19.02.2020 for an amount of Rs.73,725/- was issued by the Independent Third Party seller i.e. Lalit Chandanmal Jain indicating its Income Tax Permanent Account NO. i.e. ACLPJ8276E and Goods and Service Tax No. i.e. 27ACLPJ8276E1Z9 against the invoice. This clearly established that the said mobile phone was sold to the complainant by the Independent Third Party Seller I i.e. Lalit Chandanmal Jain without any interference by ASSPL/Answering opposite party. As allege din the present complainant, the complainant had purchased an insurance plan for the mobile phone on 05.03.2020 directly from the website of an insurer. One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited i.e. not from amongst any of the listings on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/answering opposite party. The insurer i.e One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited had been impleaded as opposite party NO.3 to the present complaint. The complainant had alleged in the present complaint that his mobile phone had been damaged in the last week of April 2020. The complainant thereafter, as alleged informed the insurer i.e. One assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited about the damage. Thereafter, the insurer i.e One Solutions Private Limited about the damage. Thereafter, the insurer i.e. One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited received the mobile phone of the complainant to repair the allegedly damaged screen. The complainant had alleged that he was given the assurance of repair between 02.05.2020 and 07.05.2020. The complainant had alleged that the insurer i.e. One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited vide an email dated 10.06.2020 refused to service the mobile phone of the complainant on the ground that the mobile phone was of an overseas brand. Thereafter, the insurer i.e One Assist Consumer Solutions Private Limited allegedly returned the mobile phone to the complainant in a damaged condition. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The case was fixed for filing evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 as well as payment of costs. Cost not paid. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Waited sufficiently. No more wait was justified. Hence, opposite parties were hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.10.2022.
4. The complainant led evidence in support of their respective version..
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) award for total loss/damages amount of Rs.73725/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shariq Ansari, Ex.C1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 & C3– Membership details,Ex.C4 (1-3)– document verification, Ex.C-5 – email dated June 10,2020, Ex.C-6 (1-2) – email dated 10 June 2020, Exs.C-7 – email dated 16.June 2020, Ex.C7A – email dated 16 June 2020,, Exs.C8 to C-10 – postal receipts, Ex.C-11 – legal notice.
7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.
8. Opposite parties, jointly & severally, are directed to pay Rs.73725/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 29.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
