BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 20^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITHA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

1. Complainant filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to deliver the product/Printer “Cannon Image class LBP 2900 B single function laser monochrome printer (Black)” OR alternatively to pay its value of sum of Rs.11,799/- with interest of 18% per annum from the date of payment i.e., on 8.10.2020 till the realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

2.      Brief facts of the case are as below:-

 Complainant being class one senior scale officer of Government, after superannuation he involved in other assignments as an expert in many associations/institutions/organizations who approaches him for guidance, opinions, drafting rules and regulations, containing enquiries etc. For all these assignments, he required to have his own printer for his official use.  Therefore he placed an order to purchase printer with Amazon E-commerce marketing platform who being OP No.1 and 2 in this case. OP No.1 and 2 makes periodical announcements through print and electronic media about the sale of consumer products at reasonable prices often.  In pursuance to the said announcements, complainant has placed 22 orders in 2020 for supply of various products on different dates.  Complainant stated that he has also ordered “Cannon image class 2900 B single function laser monochrome printer (Black)” bearing No.404-2201691-8181921 on 08.10.2020 for sum of Rs.11,799/- through E-mail. The complainant paid Rs.11,779/-, was made on the same day through online debit card of State Bank of India, AFS Branch, Jalahalli East, Bangalore – 560014. 

3. After acceptance of order placed by the complainant, he received a message from Amazon India on 10.10.2020 with regard to the shipment of the said printer.  The message did not specified the time and date of the delivery of the printer.  The complainant was expecting the delivery of the printer on 15.10.2020.  However, on 14.10.2020 when the complainant was not in the house, a delivery man came to the house of the complainant on a Two-wheeler and delivered a small packet at his residence which was received by his wife, who being unaware of the order placed by the complainant. On 15.10.2020, complainant came and opened the small packet delivered on 14.10.2020, he was surprised to find that packet contained of “HP Bluetooth mini speaker 300” which contained an invoice No.IN-QNIO-2677 dated 08.10.2020.  The said invoice was on the letter head of Amazon India stating that printer was sold by ‘Time stationers Private Limited’, Gurgaon, Haryana.  The said invoices was signed by person said to be an ‘authorized signatory’ for Time stationers Private Limited.  The MRP of mini speaker is shown as Rs.2,299/- for which the complainant had not placed any order and no invoices was raised for mini speaker.  Complainant said in his complaint that even though M/s Amazon India collected the price of Rs.11,779/- for supply of the printer, but delivered mini speaker instead of printer.  Therefore complainant stated that it is a clear case of breach of trust and fraud.  Hence complainant stated that he has paid amount of Rs.11,779/- to OP No.1 a d 2 to purchase the printer but OP’s have sent mini speaker which costs Rs.2,299/-, which is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OP’s.  The same has been brought to the notice to OP’s No.1 and 2 by issuing legal notice to them and requested to supply the printer for which he placed order or else refund the amount he paid towards it with damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.15,000/- within 7 days from the receipt of legal notice. The legal notice duly served on OP No.1 and 2 In turn, OP No.1 sent untenable reply to the legal notice of complainant.  Hence complainant approached this commission seeking the direction to OP to supply printer as he placed order or refund his paid amount towards printer, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation.  4.    After the issuance of notice OP No.1 and 2 made their representation through their counsel and filed their statement of objection with citations.  In their version, OP No.1 and 2 denied the allegation of complainant and stated that OP No.1 and 2 are one and the same, manages and operates the E-commerce market place i.e., www.amazon.in where independent 3^rd party sellers list their products for sale. Seller is free to list any product for sale and any buyer is free to choose and place order on any product from any independent 3^rd party seller selling product on the E-commerce market place. OP No.1 also stated and clarifies that all the transactions of a sale under taken by buyer on the E-commerce market place are strictly bipartite agreement entered into between the buyer and independent 3^rd party seller listed on the market place.  OP No.1 and 2 submitted that the product was stated to the complainant by the independent 3^rd party seller i.e., Time Stationers Private Limited.  Upon receipt of the complaint OP No.1 and 2 (ASSPL – Amazon Seller Services Private Limited) contacted the independent 3^rd party seller informed with regard to the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant in turn 3^rd party seller informed OP No.1 and 2 that the correct product was sent to the complainant in an intact condition.  The same was communicated to the complainant by ASSPL on behalf of independent 3^rd party seller.  Therefore, OP No.1 and 2 stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them.  The supply of mini speaker in place of printer is attributed by 3^rd party seller only.  But the complainant has not made the 3^rd party seller who had supplied the product to the proceedings.  Therefore, the liability lies only against the third party seller since he has supplied wrong product to the complainant, as he alleged.  Therefore there is no fault or deficiency of services on the part of OP No.1 and 2.  Hence OP No.1 and 2 prayed this commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

5.   In pursuance to the contention taken by OP No.1 and 2 in their version, complainant proceed to take necessary party to the complaint as OP No.3.  Therefore 3^rd party seller - Time Stationers Private Limited who supplied the product to the complainant has impleaded as OP No.3 in the complaint.  On the date of the appearance OP No.3 was absent, though the notice duly served on it but on 14.10.2022 OP No.3 has sent reply to the commission stating that being OP No.3 is actual seller on Amazon platform, the goods are packed and handed over to the logistics partner on OP No.1 only for delivery to the consumer/complainant on the other side OP No.3 also stated that the consumer (complainant in this case) makes the payment to the OP No.1, not to the seller. OP No.1 deducted its commission/charges for delivering/selling the same to the buyers, complainant here in and remits the balance amount to the seller.  OP No.3 denied the allegations made by OP No.1 and 2.  OP No.3 stated in his reply that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the seller for deliverance of goods.  It is evidencing OP No.1 and that the onus of delivery of the printer is always lies on the OP No.1.  It is wrongly attributed that it was required to deliver/supply the item to the complainant by OP No.3, hence OP No.3 is not caused any deficiency of services to the complainant.  It is attributed by OP No.1 and 2 and liable to compensate to the complainant by OP No.1 and 2 only.  Therefore OP No.3 prays this commission to dismiss the present case against him.

5.  After filing a version and reply by OP No.1 to 3, complainant and OP No.1 and 2 adduced their affidavit evidence.  In support of their oral evidence, both the parties produced supporting documentary evidences before this commission, reiterated above as stated in the complaint and version respectively. On the basis of the pleadings of the party the following points will arise for our consideration :-

Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of services on the part of OP’s?

Point No.2: Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as  sought in the complaint?

 Point No.3: What order?

Heard the arguments on both parties.

              6.Our answers to the about points are as follows:-

Point No.1:-In the affirmative

Point No.2:-Partly affirmative

Point No.3:-As per the final order as per the following

Reasons

7. Point No.1 and 2:- These points are interconnected to each other and for the sake of complaints to avoid repetition of the facts and these points are taken up together for common discussion.  On perusal of the pleadings it is not in dispute that complainant has purchased “Cannon Image Class LBP 2900 B Single Function Laser Monochrome Printer (black)” bearing No. 404-2201691-8181921 through OP No.1 and for the same complainant has paid Rs.11,779/- through online debit card of State Bank of India. OP No.1 issued receipt for the same which is at exhibit P2.  The complainant expected the delivery of the product 15.10.2020.  But the product was delivered on 14.10.2020.  After the receipt of the product complainant was shocked to see the small packet delivered by OP’s.  When the complainant opened the delivered packet, the product was seems to be different and wrong product was delivered to him. The product was ‘HP Bluetooth mini speaker 300’ which contained invoices No.IN-QNIO-2677 HR-QNIO 142250211-2021 dated 08.10.2020.  The said invoice was on the letter head of the Amazon in stating that the printer was sold by Time Stationers Private Limited, Gurgaon for sum of Rs.11,779/-. On perusal of EX-P2, evidenting that the tax invoice generated for the printer, but the product sent was mini speaker. The Price on box of mini-speaker exhibits, it costs RS.2,299/-.

8. Complainant has stated in the complaint that complainant has been Senior class one officer in the Government and had involved in many of the assignments like guidance rendering, drafting rules and regulations, conducting enquires with many of the organizations and expert in dealing such assignments. He purchased the printer for smooth function of his assignments. But after delivery, when complainant found small box with wrong product in place of printer he was shocked and brought to the notice to the OP No.1 and 2 by issuing legal notice calling upon them to replace the product with printer or refund the amount he paid for the printer with compensation and the cost on 02.11.2020 which is at Ex-P3. The said legal notice was duly served on OP No.1 and 2.  On behalf of OP No.1, counsel replied to the legal notice on 05.02.2021 by denying the allegations and not liable for the wrong delivery, which is at Ex-P4.  The contention taken by OP No.1 is unacceptable, stated by OP No.1 is E-commerce market place for the sellers for their easy and convenient to sell their products.  Per contra, buyers get proper and relevant products in the website of OP No.1 to buy the products.  Here in our view, buyers always relied and trust the E-platform for market place to buy genuine products since this E-commerce website were having contractual transaction between the sellers.  Hence we are not accepting the contention of OP No.1 and 2. OP No.1 and 2 also contended that there is bipartite agreements between buyers and 3^rd party seller, hence liability lies only on 3^rd party seller who is not a party in this proceedings.

9.  In a later stage, complainant brought 3^rd party seller i.e. Time Stationers Private Limited into the proceedings as OP No.3 Notice sent to OP No.3. OP No.3 replied to notice stated that there is no privity of contract between buyer and the seller as stated by the OP No.1 and 2.  OP No.1 and 2 receives the amount for the product placed by the buyers on behalf of the sellers, the product will be delivered by seller. 

10. Upon going through the documents placed on record, E-commerce market place have vital role as a agent between consumer and seller, because E-commerce market place has contractual transaction between both seller and consumers.  Therefore, in our considered view, merely on these grounds OP No.1 and 2 cannot escape from the liability and their contention has no relevancy.

11. On perusal of reply of OP No.3 who is Time Stationers Private Limited has neither stated against the allegations with regard to the wrong delivery of product as alleged by complainant nor stated against the party to the proceedings.  It indicates that the allegation made in the complaint by the complainant with regard to the delivery of mini speaker in place of printer is admitted by OP No.3. Hence in our view OP No.1 to 3 are liable to compensate to deficiency of service caused to the complainant by delivering mini speaker in place of Cannon image class 2900 B single function laser monochrome printer (Black).

12. OP No.1 and 2 being reputed and worldwide E-commerce platform onus on the product delivered to the customers who place an order through them.  Complainant has produced HP Bluetooth mini speaker 300 before the commission to prove the averment made in the complaint are true and also proved that he is deprived by the printer.  It is evidencing that the printer has not delivered to the complainant instead mini speaker has delivered. 

13. For the deficiency of services, complainant has prayed this commission seeking direction to OP’s to deliver the printer with the above specific information to the complainant or to refund the amount with interest of 18% per annum.  Considering the trauma he underwent immediately after the receipt of the product which was in a small packet, might leads to mental agony and also might caused the inconvenience for his day to day official assignments.

14. In our considered view the electronic companies keep on updating or changing their products/models with their each specifications, complainant may not get the printer with above said speicfications as he stated in the complaint which was ordered in the year 2020.  Therefore in our view refund gives more relief to the complainant rather directing OP’s to deliver the printer with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 08.10.2020 till this order and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation seems to be fair and just to grant against Rs.1,00,000/-, seems to be exorbitant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation, in the ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons we answered Point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No.2 is partly allowed.

14. Point No.3:- on the basis, the findings given on the Point 1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed under section 35 of consumer protection act 2019, is hereby partly allowed.

2. OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.11,779/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 08.10.2020 till this date by collecting mini speaker from him.

3. OP’s further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and deficiency of services and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from  the date of order failing which OP’s shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Award amount from the date of order till realization.  

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^th day of APRIL, 2023)  

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party ;

NIL