Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/13/2016

M/s.V.Mohit - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Amazon Seller Service Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

18 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  30.12.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  18.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 18^th   DAY OF APRIL 2018

 

C.C.NO.13/2016

 

 

Mr.V.Mohit,

No.71, 2^nd Street,

Korattur,

Chennai – 600 080.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

M/s.Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited,

Having their Registered Office at

Ground Floor, Eros Corporate Centre,

Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

 

2. The Manager,

M/s. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office at S-405, Ground Floor,

Greater Kailash II,

New Delhi – 110 048.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 15.02.2016

Counsel for Complainant                       : Party in Person

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                         : M/s.K.Shankar & Prince Pawaiya

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.8,999/- towards cost of the mobile with 18% interest and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant placed an order on 03.06.2015 through the 1^st opposite party website  to  purchase  a YU Yureka Moondust Grey  Mobile Phone and made a payment of Rs.8,999/- . The said mobile phone was delivered to him on 07.06.2015 by the seller/ the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant found that the mobile was not working effectively and it was in defective condition. Immediately he brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties and they asked him to return the mobile and they would refund the amount within four days. The complainant retransmitted the mobile to the seller and they collected the said phone on 14.06.2015 with return slip dated 14.06.2015.

          2. The 1^st opposite party informed the complainant through mail dated 14.06.2015 that a sum of Rs.8,999/- will be credited in his account. Mr. Vinay Raj of the executive customer of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant by mail dated 08.07.2015 that the amount has been transferred on 14.06.2005. However, the said amount was not credited in his account. The complainant bank also issued letter dated 09.07.2015 that no amount was credited in his account.  Hence the complainant issued notice on 30.07.2015 through his counsel that the amount was not refunded to his account and hence the acts of the opposite parties are tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

          3. The complainant is a student of chartered Accountant. He purchased a mobile for his day today activities and however he could not use the same. After 60 days he purchased another mobile at a cost of Rs.14,999/-. Depriving the complainant to use the mobile for 60 days caused mental agony to him.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.8,999/- towards the cost of the mobile with 18% interest and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party provides online market place were independent 3^rd parties seller can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their listing. This opposite party has not involved in the sale transactions between the customers and sellers. The contract of sale of product on the website  is a bipartite contract between the customer and seller. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency to the complainant and therefore the complainant cannot be considered as a Consumer, as he had not availed any service from this opposite party. The complainant seeks only refund of money and he can do the same only in the Civil Court and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The other averments made in the complaint are denied and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The subject matter of the dispute is in respect of the non receipt of the refund amount made by the 1^st opposite party. Such a dispute is more of a civil nature and will not come under the consumer dispute. This opposite party is only a seller on the market place of the 1^st opposite party. The refund for the returned product is effected by the 1^st opposite party. If the complainant has not received amount he should address any such grievance against his bank only. The product sold by his opposite party is manufactured by Micromax Informatics Limited and it carries the warranty issued by them. Since this opposite party only a seller of the manufacturer of goods, he has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The 1^st opposite party is online platform and the sellers list their products for sale with the 1^st opposite party online market place. The 2^nd opposite party listed mobile phone manufactured by Micromax Informatics Limited and with other product for sale in the above said market place. The complainant placed an order to purchase a mobile phone  by name Yu Yureka Moondust Grey in the 1^st opposite party online market place on 03.06.2015 and he also paid the cost of the mobile of Rs.8,999/-. The 2^nd opposite party seller delivered the mobile to the complainant on 07.06.2015 and for the same he issued Ex.A1 invoice. On receipt of mobile the complainant found that it was not working effectively and defective and immediately informed the opposite parties and they requested to return the mobile and they will refund the cost of the mobile within four days from the date  of receipt of the product. The complainant returned the mobile to the 1^st opposite party and delivered to him and Ex.A2 is the acknowledgements returns slip dated 14.06.2015.

          8. The complainant furnished his account No.6311467323 Indian Bank Branch with IFSC Code enabling the opposite parties to refund the amount in his account. On 14.06.2015 the complainant received Ex.A3 mail that the amount is credited. On 08.07.2015 Mr.Vinay Raj one of the executive of the 1^st opposite party sent mail that the amount has been transferred on 14.06.2015 through NEFT transfer. However, till 09.07.2015 the amount was not credited in the complainant account. His banker is also issued Ex.A4 letter (at page 6 of the complainant typed set of documents) dated 09.07.2015 that no amount of Rs.8,999/- was received in the complainant’s account. Ex.A5 Statement of Account of the complainant proves that the opposite parties have not refunded the amount to the complainant account. Having the opposite parties received the mobile and as assured failed to credit the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant account establishes that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          09. The 1^st opposite party would contend that he had provided only a platform to the sellers to list their products and the 3^rd parties are purchasing the products through online and therefore the complainant is not a consumer in respect of him and he has not provided any service to him.    The 1^st opposite party’s website used by the complainant to book the product. Hence the 1^st opposite party website provided service to the complainant to book the product.  The returned product also received by the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A2 return slip. The 2^nd opposite party would state that the 1^st opposite party only to refund the amount. The 1^st opposite party filed Ex.B2 refund details. In Ex.B2 first page the complainant account number given correctly and whereas in the second page of Ex.B2 the account number of beneficiary given wrongly. The facts remain that the amount was not refunded to the complainant as assured by the 1^st opposite party and therefore the complainant is a consumer and the 1^st opposite party failed to refund the amount inspite of assurance given and wrong beneficiary account number given in Ex.B2 shows the unfair trade practice of him and therefore we hold that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          10. The 2^nd opposite party would contend that he is only a seller and hence he has not committed any deficiency in service. Immediate to the delivery of the product to the complainant, he informed that product is defective and returned the same. Having the 2^nd opposite party sold the defective goods to the complainant and even after return of the goods the 2^nd opposite party has not ensured the refund of the money to the complainant establishes that he has also committed deficiency. Further till date the amount was not refunded to him.  Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service to the complainant by non- refunding the cost of the product purchased by him.

11. POINT NO:2

          The mobile cost of Rs.8,999/- was not refunded to the complainant and hence the opposite parties 1 &2 can be directed to refund the said amount to him. The complainant was deprived of using mobile phone for 60 days and thereafter he purchased another mobile for his day today usage and further failure to refund the cost of the mobile, the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and therefore for the same, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally  are  ordered to refund a sum of Rs.8,999/- (Rupees eight  thousand  nine hundred and ninety nine only) towards the cost the product to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said refund and compensation amount  shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18^th  day of April 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.06.2015                   Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 14.06.2015                   Return Slip from the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 14.06.2015                   Reply mail from the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 09.07.2015                   Letter from Indian Bank

Ex.A5 dated 01.05.2015                   Statement of Accounts from Indian Bank

                                                     To 09.07.2015

 

Ex.A6 dated 30.07.2015                   Legal Notice along with the postal receipts sent to

                                                     both the opposite parties

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      The conditions relating to the customers use

 

Ex.B2 dated 20.09.2016                   NEFT Transaction details along with Return

                                                     Details

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      Order details

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT