West Bengal

Bankura

CC/6/2024

Somsubhra Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,D.S.Logistics - Opp.Party(s)

Swarnendu Mondal

05 Dec 2024

ORDER

  IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.06/2024

       Date of Filing:  05/01/2024

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                                     Ld. President      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui                    Ld. Member

 

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Swarnendu Mondal

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Ananda Mohan Mondal

 

Complainant:

Somsubhra Dutta,S/O-Sri Ramkrishna Dutta,R/O-Rabindra Sarani,Bankura,P.O&P.S&Dist-Bankura,Pin-722101,Mob-9007015970

 

Opposite Party:

1. The Branch Manager,D.S.Logistics(on behalf of Amazon.In)having office at Vill-Mithila,P.O-Kesiakol,P.S&Dist-Bankura,Pin-722155
2. The HR Manager,Amazon.In,having Registered Head Office at 2^nd Floor,Safina Towers,Opp JP Techno Park,No-3,Ali Asker Road,Bangalore-560052
3. The HR Manager,HV Connecting Infra BLR India Private Limited,Having Registered office address at H-25,Sajnee Complex,OPP Surya Complex,City Light Road,Surat Gujrat,Pin-395007
4.  The HR Manager,HV Connecting Infra BLR India Private Limited,having place of Business at-115,3^rd Cross Road,Bengaluru,Bengaluru Urban,Karnataka,560078
5. The Amazon Seller Services Pvt.Ltd,having registered address at 8^th Floor,Brigade Gateway,26/1 Dr.Raj Kumar Road,Bangalore-560055
6. The Amazon Seller Services Pvt.Ltd,VJ,Business Tower,Plot No.A-6,8^th Floor,Sector 125,Noida-201301

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT  

 

Order No.13

Dated:05-12-2024

Complainant files hazira through Advocate.

O.P. No.5 is represented through Advocate.

No step is taken by O.P. No.1 despite service of notice. Notice upon other O.P.s are dispensed with.

The case is fixed for argument.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd…….p/2

Page: 2

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he booked a Mobile Handset Motorola G62 (Frosted Blue, 6GB RAM, 128GB Storage, 16.64cm Full HD + Display) for Rs.16,998/- on online platform with O.P. No.5 but on delivery on 17/07/2023 he found that it was just a speaker and not the booked item. He took up the issue with O.P. No.5 for replacement of the product in due time but of no avail. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

O.P. No.5 contested the case by filing a lengthy written version contending inter alia that they are intermediary to facilitate the transaction between the seller and the customer and as such they have no product liability in delivery of the wrong product.

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds from the e-mail correspondences between the parties that the Complainant received a speaker and not the Mobile Handset as per booking order. The Complainant as a consumer is to receive the exact item as per booking and non-delivery of proper item amounts to deficiency in service.

Now the question is who is liable for delivery of wrong product. In this connection Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.5 has submitted before the Commission with reference to Section 79 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 that they have no liability for delivery of wrong product as they are intermediary only under the said Act. But Section 79 of Information & Technology Act, 2000 is not applicable to the present case as it does not relate to sharing of any information, data or communication link between the Buyer and the Intermediary.  Under the Consumer Protection  (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 O.P. No.5 is an E-Commerce entity within the definition of Section 3 (1)(b) of the said Rule who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce and as such in terms of Section 6(4)(a) of the said Rule they have a prior Privity of Contract with the Seller offering goods or services through market place E-Commerce Entity in order to undertake or solicit such sale or offer. Thus it is clearly evident from the above mentioned provision of law that O.P. No.5 has to shoulder the responsibility, accountability and liability for delivery of wrong product to the Complainant by the registered product seller on their website.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd……..p/3

Page: 3

Lengthy written version on behalf of O.P. No.5 will not absolve them of product liability under the Consumer Protection Act by shifting the liability upon the Product Seller and Product Manufacturing Co. The Complainant is therefore entitled to get the relief from O.P. No.5 apart from Product Seller/O.P. No.3 & O.P. No.4.

Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.5 and Ex-Parte against O.P. No.1 but all without cost.

O.P. No. 5 is directed to refund Rs.16,998/- being the paid up price value of the Mobile Handset or to replace the wrong product i.e. Speaker by a new Mobile Handset of the same Model and same price  with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in both cases within a month from this date in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

 

     __________________                                    ________________         

 HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                            HON’BLE    MEMBER