DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. No. 12/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
24.01.2022 21.02.2022 30.01.2023
Complainant/s:- | DIPAK SHAW, S/o Sree Raj Kumar Shaw, by religion Hindu, by occupation Temporary Service aged about 30 years, of BBT Road, P.O. Hazinagar, P.S. Naihati, District North 24 Parganas, Pin - 743135 = Vs. = |
Opposite Party/s:- | - APPARIO RETAIL PVT. LTD., Having its registered office at : 1st Floor, UB Plaza, St. Marks Road, Shantala Nagar, Bangalore – 560001, Karnataka, India. And also having address at : Building No. CCU1, Mouza Amraberia, Phase – 2, ESR Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Vill. Amraberia, Rajapur, Joyargori Gram Panchayat, Uluberia, P.S. Uluberia, District Howrah, Pin – 711303, W.B.
- AMAZON INDIA, Having its Head Office at : 26/1, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (West), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560055, Karnataka, India.
Having Kolkata Office at : Kolkata Airport Quarters, Kaikhali, Kolkata – 700028. - AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD., Having its Head Office at : 26/1, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (West), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560055, Karnataka, India.
- AMAZON HUB, 447, P. Majumder Road, Kabardanga, Haltu, P.S. Garfa, Kolkata – 700078.
|
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri Abhijit Basu……………………….Member
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief facts of the case is as under:-
The Complainant upon payment of total amount of Rs. 66,990/- only by Debit Card booked a laptop HP pavilion (2021) to O.P. No. 2 vide Order No. 403-7400190-0745161 dated 08.09.2021 through online website of O.P. No. 2 “AMAZON.IN”. Accordingly the O.P. No. 2 agreed to deliver the said laptop to be sold by the O.P. No. 1. The entire payment of the price of the laptop was also made from Complainant’s S.B A/c No. 100118896196 of the Industrial bank, Naihati branch, District North 24 Parganas. The O.P Nos. 2 and 3 as an online platform within India through which are advertised in their website “amazon.in” and O.P. No. 4 is a Kolkata Hub for Amazon INC and in terms of products ordered from all corners of the country came here and are sorted here as per their shop address and deliver to the customers. After such booking of the product by the Complainants the O.P No. 2 and 3 through O.P. No. 4 delivered a sealed box / packet to the Complainant on 09.09.2021. After unpacked the sealed box / packet got surprised to notice that a black stone instead of laptop has delivered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No. 4. The Complainant immediately made a call to the delivery boy in his mobile number being mobile number 9681833838 but none did response to such call. Compelling circumstances complainant informed the entire incident to the customer care of O.P. no. 2 on 09.09.2021 and after two days the O.P. no. 2 enquired the entire incidents. On 15.09.2021 customer grievances cell of O.P. No. 2 registered grievance no. 2965067 and disposed the grievance on 20.09.2022 with remarks – “basis your complaint and on information
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C. C. No. 12/2022
received from the seller we find that the correct and complete markendise ordered by you was delivered to you by the seller on 9th September, 2021 in an intact condition, accordingly neither replacement order nor refund can be initiated. Further, it is submitted that our role is limited to that of an intermediary and we are not the seller / manufacturer of the product listed on the e-commerce market place. The product listed on the e-commerce market place are sold by independent third party seller. In view of the above, the issue is closed.”
The Complainant sent demand notice through advocate letter but it was refund and returned as unserved. One copy of the said notice was also sent to C.B.I, it is also mentioned that through mail O.P. also informed to the Complainant that “…….in absence of suitable / acceptable redressal, you may file a case at the designated consumer commission from a place of your conveyance……”
The Complainant paid the entire amount of the product / laptop to the O.Ps and all the O.Ps received their proportionate amount for sale the said product. It is also sub mitted by the complainant that O.P. No. 1 who sold the product / laptop to the Complainant is responsible to deliver the proper and definite product / laptop to the Complainant. Instead of sending laptop / product the O.P No. 1 sent a black stone through other O.Ps. The O.Ps did not solve the problem, hence, compelling circumstances the Complainant filed this case. The notices were sent to O.Ps through speed post and thereafter published notice as newspapers but O.Ps were not feel any urge to attend before this Commission.
Issued framed for Judgment
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief / reliefs or not?
Reason for Judgment
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and character of the case all the points are taken up together.
The Complainant ordered one laptop by payment of total Rs. 66,990/- by Debit Card on 08.09.2021 to O.P. No. 2 for HP Pavilion (2021) thin and light 11th Gencore i5 Laptop, 16 GB RAM, 512 SSD, Irix Xe Graphics, 14-inch (35.56 cms) F H D Screen, Win 10, MS-Office, Backlit Keyboard Natural Silver (14-dv0054TU) (B08WBB369L) HSN: 84713010 Vide Order No. 403-7400190-0745161 dated 08.09.2021 through online website of O.P No. 2 ‘’amazon.in’’. Actually O.P. No. 1 sold & packed the laptop and through O.P. No. 2 to 4 delivered it to the Complainant.
The Complainant paid entire amount of Rs. 66,690/- including all taxes to O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 and 3 are online platform within India through which customers purchased various goods and products. O.P. No. 4 is Kolkata Hub for amazon INC who delivered the sealed box / packet to the Complainant on 09.09.2021. The said laptop sold by O.P No. 1 company through O.P. No. 2, 3 and 4 in their website. The complainant raised complaint that in place of laptop the O.Ps delivered black stone to the Complainant. The Complainant communicated to O.Ps for solve the problem but in vain. Even one of the O.Ps suggested the Complainant to file the case before D.C.D.R.C., to solve the problem. Compelling circumstances the case filed by the Complainant, notices were issued to the O.Ps U/s 65 of C.P. Act. Even paper publication notices were published to appear before this Commisson but the O.Ps did not feel any urge to appear before this Commission.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C. C. No. 12/2022
The O.Ps did not controverted the allegations of the complaint by filing any affidavit or any oath. As such there is no reason to disbelieve by the complainant by swearing affidavit. Hence, complainant is a customer and ops are service provider but ops failed to provide their service and ops also liable for unfair trade practice therefore we find that the complainant has proved his case and is entitled to get decree in his favour. This a case for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
The Electronic Service Provider are the product sellers under the Act and have some duty and responsibilities and liability as a product seller Under Section 2 (37) of Consumer Protection Act and Unfair Trade Practice under the Act of Section 2 (47) is also under the Consumer Protection Act. Inventory E-commerce entitles have some liberty as market place sellers. Online fraud and unethical trading practice have made consumer fearful of exposing themselves. This case the seller frauded the Complainant which is tantamount of unfair trade practice. There is liability of market place E-commerce entities in rule 5 of Consumer Protection (E-commerce) rule 2020 and in rule 6 mentioned the duties of sellers on market place which is violated by the O.P members. It is also mentioned that as per rule 8 of Consumer Protection (E-commerce) rule 2020 the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 shall apply for any violation of the provisions of Consumer Protection (E-commerce) rule.
Hence, this Commission has ample power to try this case. The case is within pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. In the instant case seller sent one black stone instead of laptop which is unfair trade practice, fraud and also deficiency of service. The Complainants take all steps to solve this problem with O.Ps but in vain. Therefore, the O.P No. 1 is liable to deliver the laptop to the Complainant through other O.Ps free of cost as already they received order and received full payment on their part.
Hence,
It is Ordered
That the instant case being no.CC- 12/2022 be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against O.P. No. 1 to 4.
It is hereby directed the O.P. No. 1 to send back and / or replace the new laptop to the Complainant free of cost and O.P No. 2 to 4 are directed to deliver the said new laptop to the Complainant with free of cost within 02 months from the date of delivery of the judgment.
Alternatively the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 66,990/- proportionately as received jointly and severally to the Complainant with 6% interest from the date of payment till recovery and with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within 02 months from the date of delivery of the judgment. Failing which the Complainant is at liberty to file the decree for execution according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
