Karnataka

Mysore

CC/159/2019

R.Bhaskar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Amazon Seller Services Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

18 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MYSURU
No.1542 F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara,
Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysuru-570023
 
Complaint Case No. CC/159/2019
( Date of Filing : 20 Mar 2019 )
 
1. R.Bhaskar
S/o C.Ramakrishna Minitha LIC 104-1, 807 HUDCO 2nd Stage, Kuvempunagara Near Sri Prasanna Ganapathi Temple, Mysuru-570023
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Amazon Seller Services Pvt.Ltd.
WH-10 Crystal Indus Logistics Park, Bhayla, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382220
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.NARAYANAPPA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.C.Devakumar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. C.RENUKAMBA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 18 Jan 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Nature of complaint

:

Deficiency in service

Date of filing of complaint

:

20.03.2019

Date of Issue notice

:

21.05.2019

Date of order

:

18.01.2021

Duration of Proceeding

:

1 YEARS    9 MONTHS 28DAYS

 

          Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

          Member

 

  1.       The Complainant Sri R.Bhaskar has filed the complaint  Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party alleging unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to refund of Rs. 9,945/-towards value of the mobile handset and compensation of Rs.25,000/-towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-towards litigation expenses and such other reliefs.

 

  1.     Brief facts of the complaint:

 

The complainant has purchased a certified refurbishedSamsung Galaxy J7 Androidphone from the opposite party on 26.02.2019 by paying a sum of Rs. 9,945/-. The parcel was opened before the delivery boy. The parcel pack contained a Samsung Galaxy J7 Android phone with a charger by name “blynk” of China model. But there was no accessories of Samsung, like earphone, charger, warranty card. It was also noticed that, the phone was heavily used one. Aggrieved with the supply of the aforesaid phone, contacted the customer care of opposite party and request them to take back the parcel and refund the amount paid. Initially the opposite party promised to send a technician to resolve the issue. But none of them have visited. A letter was written to Amazon seller service Pvt Ltd., on 09.02.2019, but the same was not replied. Hence filed the complaint.

 

  1.   The opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed version and submits that they do not sell or offers to sell any products and endorse any service on its website. But it provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. Therefore the sellers themselves are responsible, hence there is no liability from their ends.

 

  1.     The complainant has not purchased the goods from them. The mobile set was purchased from an independent third party seller, i.e., M/s Blynk Markating private limited Gujarat. Accordingly the complainant does not become a “consumer” as Under section 2(1) (d) of the Act ,hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

  1.      Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence along with several documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P13 and R1 to R5 respectively. Heard the arguments and posted for orders.

 

 

  1. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves the unfair trade practice by opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?

2. What order?

 

  1. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

  1. Point No.1:-  The complainant has purchased the certified Sumsung Galaxy J7 Android  phone on 26.02.2019 through online from i.e., M/s Blynk Marketing private limited Gujarat, through by paying a sum of Rs. 9,945/-. The blynk charger of china model was supplied without sumsung accessories like earphone, charger, warranty card. The complainant relied on exhibits P1 to P10 to prove the same. It is to be noticed that the opposite party never promised to supply the accessories of sumsung company accessories since said mobile phone was a refurbished one. Hence he cannot be excepted to supply sumsung company accessories with the phone by opposite party. Thereby the allegation of unfair trade practice is not acceptable.

 

  1.      Further the opposite party is providing a plat form to sell the third party product by way of a website. The product are sold by using the website, by the seller directly to the complainant or buyer. Therefore there was no relationship of consumer and seller between the parties. As such the complainant does not fall under purview of the definition “ConsumerUnder section 2(1) (d) of the CP Act 1986. Hence the allegation made by the complainant is not acceptable. With the above observations the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly point no.1 is answered in the negative.

 

  1. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, on point no.1 the complaint filed by Sri R.Bhaskar deserved to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence we proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

  1. The complaint is dismissed
  2. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.NARAYANAPPA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.C.Devakumar]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. C.RENUKAMBA]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.