Tripura

West Tripura

CC/9/2016

Shri Biswanath Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Amit Agarwal & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs.K.Roy, Mr.H.Das.

17 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 09 of 2016 

Sri Biswanath Bhattacharya,
S/O- Lt. Ranbindra Ch. Bhattcharya,
East of Circuit House, Kunjaban Colony, 
P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. New Capital Complex,
West Tripura.                ..…..…...Complainant.

       VERSUS

1. Sri Amit Agarwal,
VP & Country Manager,
Amazon India,
Brigade Gateway, 8th floor,
26/1, Dr. Rajkumar road,
Malleshwaram(W),
Bangalore-560055, India.
            
2. Shree Krishna Enterprise,
SCO 100 -101, Sector 34-A,
First Floor,
Chandigarh-160022.             ….................Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Mrs. Kalyani Roy,
                          Mrs. Sarama Deb,
                           Mr. Haripada Das,
                          Advocates.

For the O.P. No.2             : Sri Amritlal Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No.1            : None appeared.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  17.11.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Biswanath Bhattacharya. He filed the case against Amit Agarwal of Amazon Sales & Service and Sree Kirhsna Enterprise. Amazon Sales & Service Ltd. appeared, contested the case but Srikrishna Enterprise  did not appear. 
        Petitioner's case in short if that he purchased one Netgear N 600 Wireless Dual Band Modem Router being influenced by the advertisement given by Amazon India. He made payment through net and received the modem. But the modem was found defective. He made contact with the O.P. No.1 Amazon India who assured replacement. Thereafter Amazon India informed that Srikrishna enterprise was the seller. So, petitioner made contact with Srikrishna Enterprise but modem was not replaced. Petitioner then filed this case claiming the cost of modem Rs.9004/- and also compensation Rs.1 lakh with litigation cost.

        Amazon Sales & Service Ltd. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that amazon is a platform. It is not the seller of the modem. Srikrishna Enterprise is the seller and relief is to be sought against Srikrishna Enterprise. Amazon is only facilitator and can not be a party to control any transaction in the web site.  
        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination
        (I) Whether Amazon  Sales & Service is seller and is liable to give compensation for defective product?
        (II) Whether  the petitioner is entitled to get cost of the product and compensation?

        Claimant petitioner side produced photocopy of account, Email, invoice of DTDC, Email copies, marked as exhibit- 1 Series.
        O.P. produced the Board Resolution authority letter, statement of affidavit of one Rahul Sundaram. Rahul Sundaram did not appear to face cross examination.  

        On the basis of evidence on record we shall determine the above points;
    Findings and decision:
        The contention of the ASSPL in this case is that they provided on line market place where independent 3rd party can list a product for sale. Sellers are responsible for the listings. ASSPL is not the seller. So, liability can not be fixed up on ASSPL. The product was sold out in a sealed box received from the manufacturer. ASSPL has no knowledge about the facility and defect of the product. Petitioner also can not be said to be a consumer and this case is therefore liable to be dismissed. This contention of the opposite party is not supported by the documents as produced by the complainant. Complainant made communication with ASSPL and paid the amount Rs.9004/- to the account of ASSPL. Order was placed before the Amazon. ASSPL then made communication with the petitioner to send the product to Srikrishna Enterprise. Accordingly product was sent but it was not received. The petitioner have no direct contact with the Srikrishna Enterprise. He purchased the article through Amazon and as per instruction of Amazon product (Modem) was sent to Srikrishna Enterprise but Srikrishna Enterprise sent the empty box without product. Advertisement in the net was given by Amazon, ASSPL. Petitioner made communication with Amazon.in. Amazon.in received the price of the modem, also dispatched the defective modem. Now it is contended that they have nothing to do and seller was Srikrishna Enterprise. Definitely the product was taken by ASSPL from Srikrishna Enterprise. As it was defective ASSPL is to take step against the Srikrishna Enterprise the manufacturer and original seller. But to the petitioner ASSPL is the seller who are doing business at Agartala through website. Srikrishna Enterprise was not doing business at Agartala as it has no agency here. So, the amazon.in can not deny its liability saying that it was only a platform after doing business at Agartala. The product was purchased through amazon and it was returned to the Srikrishna Enterprise as per direction of amazon. Thereafter amazon(ASSPL) seller and service did not take any step to collect the defectless product from Srikrishna Enterprise and send the same to the petitioner. They collected the defective modem sent it to the petitioner earlier but when the matter was informed it was their duty to collect the defectless one from the original seller and transport the same to the petitioner. It was not done. This is deficiency of service by Amazon India (ASSPL).

        In our considered opinion to the the petitioner ASSPL is the actual seller and they had deficiency of service as they had sent one defective modem. Therefore ASSPL has the liability to pay the price of the modem Rs.9004/-. Petitioner suffered because of the deficiency of service, for such suffering petitioner is entitled to get compensation Rs.20,000/- also litigation cost Rs.5,000/-. Thus in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.34,004/-. ASSPL can take step against Srikrishna Enterprise who sent the empty box without modem after return of product. The amount Rs.34,004/- is to be paid to the petitioner within 2 months. If not paid it will carry interest@9% P.A. Supply copy. 
   
                          Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.