Haryana

Karnal

CC/579/2022

Amish Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/sAmazon Retail India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amish Goel

26 Mar 2024

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.579 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.12.10.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 26.03.2024

 

Amish Goel son of Shri Narinder Kumar, resident of H.No.1879, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Amazon Retail India Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Directors, CEO and authorized person at Brigade Gateay, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India.

        2^nd Floor, Safina Towers, Opposite, JP Techno Park No.2, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore-560052.

2.     GetItNow, through its proprietor/authorized person at Radha Palace, 201, nearby Central Bank of India, Opposite Dhantoli Garden Park, Dhantoli, Maharashtra; Pincode 440010.

3.     S.P. Enterprises, through its proprietor/authorized person at Radha Palace, 201 Nearby Central Bank of India, Opposite Dhantoli Garden Park, Dhantoli, Mahrashtra: Pincode 440010.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……Member

          

 

 Argued by: Shri Amish Goel, complainant in person.

                   Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 ex-parte VOD 02.01.2023.

                   OP No.3 ex-parte vide oreder dated 13.12.2022.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

 

ORDER:   

               

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that Op No.1 is company which provides the e-commerce platform to the sellers. OP No.2 is firm which is selling its products online on the e-commerce platform of OP No.1. The OP No.2 uploads the photos and information of the products which they sell on platform of Op no.1. The purpose of uploading the photos and information of products is that the customers can get the correct information about the product and can buy the product accordingly. The OP No.1 is having general returns, refunds and exchange policy of 30 days. Complainant after seeing the number of printers uploaded on e-commerce platform of OP No.1, selected Canon Image Class MF264DW Multi Function printer. The complainant made the order for the said printer online which was sold by OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.36,990/- vide bill dated 22.11.2021. On 24.11.2021, when the complainant received the said printer and shocked to see that printer delivered to him was not properly packed. Complainant made video at the time of opening the box and shown to the delivery boy and also registered a complaint on the same day before OP No.1 by uploading photographs on the portal but after several requests, neither the printer was replaced nor money was refunded. The OP No.1 closed his complaint without resolving the complaint of complainant. Complainant also came to know the GST number which is mentioned on the bill does not belong to OP No.2 firm rather the GST number mentioned on the bill belongs to SP Enterprises firm i.e. OP No.3 meaning thereby OP No.2 is doing the GST scam for which complainant reserves his right to file a separate complaint before GST department also. The complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, mental torture, humiliation, harassment due to the act of the OPs from the last many years. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections stating therein that subject matter of dispute is defect in the packaging of alleged product “canon Image Class MF264DW Multi Function Printer which was purchased by the complainant on 22.11.2021 from independent third party. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant submitted a complaint stating that complainant had received a printer and it was found that the printer received by him was not properly packed and seals were broken. Moreover, MRP was also not mentioned on the printer box. The complainant further alleged that he has also made the video at the time of opening the box before deliver boy who advised to raise complaint online. However, the grievance of complainant is not yet redressed, therefore, question of performing deficiency in service and negligence, does not arise. Significantly, ASSPL, OP no.1 herein has no role to playing the manufacture, manufacturing warranty, selection, adoption, usage and dealing in printer. Hence, OP no.1 neither a relevant party nor a proper party to the present complaint and the present complaint ought to be adjudicated between the complainant and the seller of the said impugned product. Complainant purchased the impugned product directly from the seller and the amount stated in the complaint was paid to the seller of the impugned product. OP no.1 merely operates its marketplace where independent third party sellers and buyers interact. The sale transaction took place directly between the buyer and the seller and there is absolutely no involvement of OP no.1 at any stage of the transaction. There exists no privity of contract between the complainant and OP no.1 to the sale of the impugned product. It is further stated the package was delivered intact and with its contents intact. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 and they opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 02.10.2023 and 13.12.2022 respectively.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/tax invoice Ex.C1, copies of e-mails Ex.C2 to Ex.C8, Pen drive Ex.C9, and closed the evidence on 24.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahu, Narayan Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter dated 24.11.2009 Ex.R1, copy of invoice Ex.R2, copy of condition of use Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Complainant while reiterating, the contents of complaint and has vehemently argued that he purchased a printer from the OPs and paid Rs.36,990/-. Complainant received a parcel from the OPs and when he opened the same, the seals were broken and the packing of the printer was also opened. The complainant made complaint to OPs through email contacted the OPs but OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite repeated requests and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that an order was placed by the complainant for a printer from an independent third party seller. The grievance of the complainant arises solely against the seller of the Impugned Products. OP no.1 is merely an e-commerce marketplace, wherein independent sellers themselves list, offer for sale and/or sell their products to the consumers across the country. OP no.1 neither a relevant party nor a proper party to the present complaint and the present complaint ought to be adjudicated between the complainant and the seller of the said impugned product and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased the printer in question from the website of OP.

11.           As per the version of the complainant, when he received the parcel, the seals of the box were found opened and after checking the printer, it was also found in open condition. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. During the course of arguments, complainant has placed on file pendrive Ex.C9 which was prepared at the time of opening of box. Complainant has made complaint immediately to the OP. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file E-mails Ex.C2 to Ex.C8. On perusal of the said E-mails, it has been proved that the complainant has made complaints to the OPs, immediately. Hence, it has been proved from the pen-drive produced by the complainant that seals of the parcel and printer were in broken condition. Since, it has been proved that the seals of the box as well as printer were found in broken condition, then why the complainant should accept the printer, seals of which were found in broken condition, in the price of new printer. However, to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OP No.2 & 3 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant against the OPs No.2 & 3 are unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund Rs.36,990/- as cost of the printer in question to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. The complainant is also directed to handover the printer in question alongwith accessories to the OPs. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable to comply the order. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.03.2024                                   

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                         Member