Haryana

StateCommission

A/237/2018

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMINDER SATHI AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL KHATTAR

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         237 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution        :         21.03.2018

                                                Date of Decision                   :         24.08.2018

 

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited Registered Office at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, India through its authorized signatory Shri Rahul Sundaram.

          …… Appellant

Versus

 

1. Ms. Saminder Sathi D/o Sh. Randhir Singh  Sathi, R/o House No. 561, Sector-4, Panchkula.         
2. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Rear Portion, H-9, Block B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

Also at : Unit No.2, Survey No. 38/2, 89, 40, Kacharakanahalli, Jadigenahalli, Hoskote, Bangalore, through its authorized signatory.

3. One Plus Service Centre, SCO No. 98-100, First Floor, Sector-17D, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory

Also at : One Plus Service Centre, Mobile Zone Centre, Booth No. 12, Sector-10, Panchkula, through its authorized signatory.

  ……. Respondents

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Yuganshu proxy counsel for Mr. Inderjit Singh, counsel for the appellant.

                             Mr. Robin Sethi, counsel for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2 & 3.

 

O R D E R

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by complainant against the OPs was allowed and following directions were given to the Opposite parties:

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.19,999/- the cost of mobile phone to the complainant.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy failing which the OPs shall make the payment on the amount mentioned at Serial No. (i) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint”.

                             The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased handset manufactured by OP No.2 Model One A2003, Colour Sand Stone Black in the last week of October, 2016 with warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The handset was supplied by the OPs No. 1 & 2 in the first week of November, 2016 vide Invoice No. KKA-BLR6-144105041-17684819 for Rs.19,999/-. Thereafter the handset creating problems just after one month of its purchase and there remain issue of hanging, camera issues, flash light issues, call dropping and issue in recognizing finger print.  He visited the office of OP No. 3 for rectification of the fault in the handset in January, 2017, but the official of OP No.3 refused to accept the handset on the pretext that handset only need updation of the software and can be done by the complainant through net. He updated the software in the handset but the problems remained therein. Complainant served upon the OP a legal notice dated 30.03.2017 posted on 03.04.2017 which was duly served upon the OPs. Again complainant visited the OP No.3 on the advice of OP No.1 and 2 but all in vain. On 26.06.2017 handset went fully corrupted and was switched off despite continuous charges and then he went to OP No.3 on 27.06.2017 but the problem was still in existence. This act and conduct amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

                             Upon notice OP No. 1 filed written statement and stated that OP No. 1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly a bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. There is no privity of contract between the OP and the buyers and accordingly OP No. 1 is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of the contract entered into the complainant and the seller or the manufacturer.

OP No.2 filed written statement and contended that neither any representation nor any warranty has been offered by the OP No.2 on the product, purchased by the complainant. The product was delivered and received by the complainant in a sealed box condition which was put into use by the complainant without raising any allegation of the product being received in a defective condition. Thus there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP No. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.10.2017.

                             Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

                             On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.

                             Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-OP No. 1 has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3.  I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file.

                             I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 and perused the case file thoroughly.

                             The counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum has failed to take into consideration that OP No. 1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly a bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. There is no privity of contract between the OP and the buyers and accordingly OP No. 1 is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of the contract entered into the complainant and the seller or the manufacturer and prayed that appeal may be allowed and complaint filed by complainant be dismissed.

                             On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant contended that complainant purchased handset manufactured by OP No.2 Model One A2003, Colour Sand Stone Black in the last week of October, 2016 with warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The handset was supplied by the OPs No. 1 & 2 in the first week of November, 2016 vide Invoice No. KKA-BLR6-144105041-17684819 for Rs.19,999/-. Thereafter the handset creating problems just after one month of its purchase and there remain issue of hanging, camera issues, flash light issues, call dropping and issue in recognizing finger print.  He many times visited the office of OP No. 3 for rectification of the fault in the handset but all in vain. The counsel for the respondent further contended that the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the appellant.

                             I have considered the respective submission of the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties. It is admitted fact of the case that complainant purchased mobile handset from OP No.2 through OP No.1/appellant which carries warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The handset started creating problems just after one month of its purchase.  OP No. 2 has already paid the awarded amount as per directions of the District Forum. No appeal was filed by OP No.3 against the order of the District Forum.

In my view the District Forum has rightly issued the directions to the appellant and respondent No. 2 & 3 in the order dated 29.12.2017. No force in the appeal of the appellant and order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the District Forum needs no interference. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs.15,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

19.09.2018                                                                                       Presiding Member

                                                                                                    Addl. Bench-IInd  

D.K.