Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 623.
Instituted on : 28.12.2018.
Decided on : 09.01.2020.
Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Hari Ram VPO Ladhot, Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- The Amazon India Brigade gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram(W) Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India.
- Vian International Khasra No.1122, Lal Dora Extension, Bagga Link Road, Rithala-Delhi-110085.
- Skmei, 5-5-214/1, Nampally, Hyderabad.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Balwan Saroha, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Raj, Advocate for opposite Party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a analog digital watch on 25.08.2018 through Amazon site for Rs.1090/-, which was delivered to the complainant on 29.08.2018 by the Amazon transport services. On 04.12.2018 when the complainant was wearing the watch, it automatically broken from its dial case and complainant contacted the customer care number of Amazon, they told to contact the seller i.e. opposite party No.2 and complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 but they refused to hear the complainant and asked to contact the manufacturer. Then complainant contacted the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 asked the complainant to submit the bill and warranty card but the complainant told that the seller did not provide the warranty card. Then they refused to help the complainant. Opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the respondent no.3 has send the warranty card, in which the watch contains the warranty of 6 months from the date of purchase of invoice. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, his problem was not resolved. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs.1090/- i.e. cost of watch alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the respondent No. 1 only provides an online platform where third party sellers directly sells their products and buyers purchase such products from the respective sellers on the website/app out of their own free will and choice. The answering opposite party does not sell any product at its own neither directly nor through any other third party seller. The ASSPL cannot be held liable for the condition of the product post unpacking. The contents of the packaging were not known to ASSPL. Therefore, the situations, whatsoever, arising after having made the purchase and after unpacking the product. ASSPL has no control or foresee ability to conclude whether the alleged defect has been caused by the complainant himself. Further the amount paid by the complainant is against an Invoice raised by the seller of the product, which has not even been impladed as a party to the complaint and OP no.1 has no claim over the said amount. Hence in the above given submissions, there is no cause of action against the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 1.
3. Whereas, notice issued to opposite party No. 2 & 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party No. 2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.02.2019 of this Forum.
4. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that the watch was purchased by the complainant on 25.08.2018 which was delivered to the complainant on 29.08.2018 by the Amazon transport services. On 04.12.2018 when the complainant was wearing the watch, it automatically broken from its dial case. From the alleged averments, it is revealed that there is no allegation regarding the manufacturing defect in the watch in question. Moreover, the defect, as alleged, has been caused after about four months of purchase, which is also not an internal defect. The same should have been caused by the complainant himself. Hence the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
6. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.01.2020.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
