BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 453/2021
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Rep. through its authorized signatory, Mr. Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel, has its registered office at : Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, No.26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560 055. (By Sri Diwakar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sri D. Raja, Resident of 52, 7th Cross Road, Green Garden Layout, Munnekollal, Bengaluru 560 037. | …Respondent/s |
2. | Amazon Transportation Services Private Limited, Ground Floor, Eros Plaza, Eros Corporate Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi 100 19. | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.09.02.2021 passed in CC.No.634/2018 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as under;
It is the case of the complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 operates as online shopping website and Opposite Party No.2 is its courier/logistic partner. The complainant placed order to purchase one Yellow Gold Chain Necklace ORRA 22K (916) with Opposite Party No.1 on 27.04.2017 at 2.33 p.m. The said order was confirmed by Opposite Party No.1 and the same was shipped to his address on 03.05.2017 through Opposite Party No.2. The same was delivered on 06.05.2017 at 11.00 a.m. After receiving the same and opening the same, he found that the product supplied was completely of different design and of poor quality against the order placed. He raised an issue with Opposite Party No.1 at 6.27 p.m. on 06.05.2017 demanding for arranging to take back the said product and to pay the amount. On 11.05.2017 an agent from Opposite Party No.1 came to his house to pickup the product. He inspected the same and took back the same by providing an acknowledgement and also assured that the refund will be processed within 5 working business days. Inspite of it, the amount was not refunded. Many emails were exchanged inspite of it, the Opposite Party No.1 has not responded nor refunded the amount which amounts to unfair trade practice and also supplying a wrong product other than the one ordered amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
3. Upon service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the Commission and filed its version. The Opposite Party No.2 even though served remained absent and hence, placed exparte. In the version, the Opposite Party No.1 contended that it only provides platform on online market place were independent third party suggest the list of their products for sale. They neither sell nor offer any products. The seller themselves are responsible for respective listing and their products on their website. This Opposite Party is neither responsible for the product that are listed in the website nor does it interfering and influence any customer in any manner. It has not involved in sales transaction. It has denied each and every allegation made against it in the complaint. The refund has been made from nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines. The nodal account facilitates collection and deposit of fund from buyer to be credited to the sellers account/refunded back to the buyer as per the regulatory process for ecommerce transaction. There is no amount pending with them in respect of complainant. Any issue regarding non-receipt of the refund is with the concerned bank and not with this Opposite Party and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,069/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 11.05.2017, till realization along with compensation and costs.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of the appellant on admission.
6. On perusal of the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant/Respondent No.1 booked an Order for Yellow Gold Chain Necklace ORRA 22K (916) with Opposite Party No.1 on 27.04.2017 at 2.33 p.m. which were supplied through Respondent No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the said product was not that product which the complainant has ordered and it was received back by appellant. It is also true fact that the refund would be initiated by Opposite Party No.1. In the present case, the contention of the appellant is that the Respondent No.1 has sent back an imitated product and the same was found on an enquiry. Moreover, the complainant is in habit of placing order for more products and after receiving the benefits and discounts used to return the said products. However, there is no any documentary evidence produced by the Opposite Parties to prove that the complainant has sent imitated product. At that time only, the Opposite Party has to be taken action against the complainant. Moreover, the person has ordered the products online to seek the discounts and offers. There are many issues occurs in the online purchasing and the consumer has liberty to cancel the product if he is not satisfied with that product. Hence, the contention of the appellant is that the complainant has habit of placing order for more products and after receiving the benefits and discounts used to return the said products is not just and proper.
7. The appellant in appeal memo and in his objection in lower court contended that it only provides platform online market place where an independent third party suggests the list of their products for sale and they neither sell nor offer any products. Moreover, the refund has been from nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines. The Nodal account facilitates collection and deposit of funds from buyers to be credited to the sellers account/refunded back to the buyers and there is no amount pending with this in respect of the complainant. We agree that the Opposite Party provides platform online market place where an independent third party suggests the list of their products for sale. The Amazon.in is the type of E-Commerce website and it is B to C (Business to Consumer) which is typically used refer to at line retailers who sell the products and services through online. The platform online market place would suggest the third party seller to disclose to consumers basic information including the sellers name, business, address, email address, phone number etc. It also would provide strong consumer protection measures because harmed consumers will be able to identify and track down at third party sellers using the required confirmed seller information. Anyhow market place is should not been shielded from liability as they complying more than passive roles in the sales made by the third party sellers on their platforms. Hence, failing to classify online marketing places as sellers and allowing and avoidance of liability is crushing the ability for consumers to effective means of precourse when they have purchased products online a fundamental component of consumer protection. It is the sale responsibility of online market place to transport the items/ goods to the consumers in safe condition and in case it was not delivered to the consumer, refund the money as early as possible. Moreover there is no nexus between the consumer and the third party seller. Moreover, the Opposite Party contended that the refund has been made from Nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines, nodal account facility collection and deposit of funds from buyer to credited to the sellers account or refunded back to the buyer as per the regulatory process for E-Commerce transaction. Here in the present case, the amount was transferred by the complainant to the account which was shown in Amazon.in by his credit card. However, the Opposite Party has not produced any receipt towards the amount refunded by them to the complainant.
8. Perused the documents such as emails, correspondences, it is clear that the product was sent by the Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant sent it back to the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 assured to refund the amount which was paid by the complainant within five days, but, till today it was not refunded by the appellant it clearly shows the negligence and unfair trade practice on their part of Opposite Party No.1. Moreover, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Sec.2 (vii) Product Liability action lies against the product manufacturer, product seller on product service provider as the case may be. Hence, considering the facts and on going to the through the Order passed by the District Commission, in our opinion the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. We do not find any merits in this appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
