Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/311/2023

ECOM EXPRESS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONU MANCHAL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	311 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	07.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	03.01.2024

 

 

 

 

Ecom Express Limited having its registered office at : Ground Floor, 13/16 min, 17 min, Samalka, Old Delhi – Gurugram Road, Kapashera, New Delhi – 110037.

 

(Erstwhile registered office at : 14/12/2, Samalka, Old Delhi – Gurgaon Road, and one of its Branch at Plot No.242, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Panchkula.

 

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.3.

Versus

1]      Sonu Machal S/o Suresh Kumar R/o H.No.5829, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh – 160025.

 

…Respondent/complainant.

 

2]      Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore – 560055.

 

3]      Gadget World, near Hawk Canteen, Makroniya Sagar, Buzurg – 470004, Madhya Pradesh through its authorized representative.

 

...Respondents/opposite parties No.1 & 2.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                         MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Rajneesh Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant alongwith respondent No.1/complainant in person.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 20.12.2023.

Service of respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dated 20.12.2023.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                    This appeal has been filed by opposite party No.3 – Ecom Express Limited (appellant herein) against order dated 06.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) by directing the appellant alongwith opposite parties No.1 & 2, to refund the amount of ₹ 41,867.13 alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint besides awarding ₹5,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2]                In the present appeal, the sole ground to lay challenge to the impugned order is that the appellant delivers the ecommerce shipments ordered by the end customers accessing market place platforms of e-retailers in the intact condition or “Said To Contain basis only” to the said end customer and the appellant is not required to verify the contents, quality or quantity of the item to be delivered or open the package whatsoever.  It has further been stated that the appellant duly collected the parcel purchased by respondent No.1/complainant from respondent No.3 and the said parcel was duly delivered on as-is basis to the complainant. It has further been stated that the appellant is only responsible for the successful delivery of the product in question. 

3]                On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.1/ complainant, it has been argued that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint on the basis of documentary evidence on record and prayer for dismissal of the appeal has been made.

4]                After hearing the contesting parties and going through the material available on record, we are of the concerted view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In the present case, respondent No.1/complainant purchased one mobile phone from the website of Amazon for ₹41,867.13 on 29.09.2019. However, when the parcel in question was delivered by the appellant to respondent No.1/complainant, it was not containing the purchased mobile but he found 10 Samsung ear-phones in parcel, which respondent No.1/ complainant never ordered. Moreover, the factum of delivery of wrong item to respondent No.1/complainant stood corroborated by the note given by one Manpartap Singh, employee of the appellant bearing Employee Code: 0110623, who delivered the said parcel to respondent No.1/complainant. Sh. Manpartap Singh in his note clearly stated that he is an employee of the appellant and he delivered one parcel to Sonu Machal in Sector 9 and Sonu Machal opened the parcel in question in front of him wherein some rubbish i.e. Ear Pods of Samsung were there. Undisputedly, respondent No.1/complainant put his request for its return with Amazon but to no avail. Therefore, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in this case is writ large as rightly held by the District Commission. Coming to the moot question in the present appeal as to whether the appellant - opposite party No.3 could be held liable while fastening liability vide the impugned order, our answer to this question is in the affirmative. In our view the performance of its delivery partners ought to have been monitored by opposite parties No.2 and 3 and the appellant is expected to follow specific guidelines, maintain delivery standards and ensure customer satisfaction. In the instant case, the appellant being a courier agency has failed to meet these expectations. As per the case of Amazon before the District Commission, it was only a marketing platform and the product in question was sold by Gadget World, respondent No.2 and was delivered to respondent No.1/complainant through appellant-opposite party No.3 being the courier agency. It is important to mention here that for wrong delivery or non-delivery of the product to the end consumer, the courier agency cannot escape its liability by taking a plea that it is only a delivering agency and has nothing to do with the product booked or purchased. To our considered view, ensuring the safe and accurate delivery of items purchased by consumers is a shared responsibility among the seller, courier, and other parties involved in the supply chain.  However, the key is for both parties i.e. Amazon, seller and the courier agency to work collaboratively to resolve issues and ensure customer satisfaction. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that no liability can be fastened upon the appellant, thus, stands rejected. Therefore, in our considered view, the District Commission rightly observed that the appellant, who was the only medium to deliver the product to respondent No.1/complainant did not enquire about the entire episode regarding the statement, Annexure C-4 made by its delivery/courier boy and there was no investigation report/action taken report on record by Amazon and the appellant. It further rightly observed that the act of Amazon to hire services through bogus seller, thereafter non-responding to respondent No.1/complainant and non-disclosing investigation report/action taken report proved deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part. The District Commission rightly made the appellant/opposite party No.3 – courier agency liable alongwith opposite parties No.1 & 2. Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the well reasoned order of the District Commission.

5]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

6]                Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

7]                File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

03.01.2024.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad