Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/93/2017

Ms. Prakriti Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/93/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	31/01/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	25/05/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Prakriti Thakur, Girls Hostel No.6, Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

[1]  M/s Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Limited, Plot No.33, Block-A, Mohan Coop. Industrial Estates, New Delhi-110004, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  M/s Laxmi Communications, Authorized Dealer-cum- Service Centre (Micromax Mobiles), SCF 78, 1^st Floor, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), through its Proprietor.

 

[3]  The Chief General Manager, Micromax House, 90-A, Sector 18, Gurgaon – 122015, Haryana.

 

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	None.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For Opposite Party No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Ms. Prakriti Thakur has filed this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that she ordered online one Micromax Canvas Fire 4 A107 (Cosmic Grey, 8 GB) mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 on 20.10.2016 for Rs.4,560/- vide bill Annexure-1. The said mobile did not work/activated and upon contacting Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant was told that it was a fake mobile not relating to Micromax Company as its one digit was short in the IMEI number (Annexure-2). Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant bought the mobile handset from the independent third party seller selling its products on the website operated by the answering Opposite Party. The answering Opposite Party is not responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers. The Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel.

 

8.      Admittedly, vide bill Annexure-1 the Complainant purchased online the subject mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 on 20.10.2016 for Rs.4560/-. Perusal of Annexure C-II, which is a writing/slip issued by Opposite Party No.2, shows that the handset is a fake one and not related to Micromax Company.

 

9.      Per contra, Opposite Party No.1 has contended that it is not responsible for the products that are listed on its website by various third party sellers.

 

10.      However, we are not impressed with the contention put forth by the Opposite Party No.1 for the reasons recorded hereinbelow.

 

11.      Since the product was sold at the platform of Opposite Party No.1, we are of the concerted opinion that Opposite Party No.1 is solely liable if the product sold by a third party seller on its platform turned to be fake/imitated product. At any rate, Amazon’s (OP No.1) measures for countering fakes seems to be weak due to its lax policies and policing, which promoted selling of fake products, as Sellers could remain anonymous and know that they would face no legal recourse. Opposite Party No.1 must have its Brand Registry to keep track of legitimate brands and could use software to weed out fakes. Why Opposite Party No.1 doesn’t do this is mind blowing and makes it complicit in the rampant counterfeiting on its platform. Thus, Opposite Party No.1 cannot be allowed to take a shield, to evade its liability on the ground that the Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website.  

 

12.      It is thus legitimately established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice. Had, Opposite Party No.1 been vigilant in redressing the grievance of the complainant promptly, she would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Forum for seeking redressal by expending money on litigation. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.1.

 

13.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.4560/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset to the Complainant, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase, till it is actually paid;

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[c]  To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th May, 2018                                                                       

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

                                      Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”