Orissa

Rayagada

CC/80/2019

Sri V. Sri Harsha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Service Manager, Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

 

Date of Institution: 22.08.2019

     Date of Final Hearing: 13.04.2023

         Date of  Pronouncement: 20.04.2023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 80 / 2019

Sri  V. Sri  Harsha,

S/O: Sri Voona Siva Kesava Rao,

UmasankarTheatre  Road,

Dist: Rayagada, 765 001.

(Sri  R.K. Senapati, Advocate  for the Complainant)             …Complainant

Versus

1.The Service Manager, Amazon India ,

Regd. Office, Brigade Gateway, 8^th. Floor,

Bangalore (Karnataka)    560055.

(Sri  Ramesh Kumar Sana  for the O.P No.1.)           

2. The Service Manager, Fossil India Pvt. Ltd.,

Prestige Nebula, Corporate office, Unit No. 301,

1, Bengaluru, Cubbon Road, Bangalore-560 001.

(None for the O.P. No.2).                               …        Opposite Parties

 

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

           2. Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Member.

ORDER

Sri  Satish  Kumar Panigrahi, Member

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non refund   of   Rs. 7,650/- towards  watch price  which was  found defective  within warranty period due to non availability of  service centre  at  Rayagada District (Odisha) which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had purchased a Fossil Brown Dial  Analogue Men’s Watch bearing Model No. B0055BWXF4(dbfs-4656) from the O.P. No.2 through  the O.P. 1(Amazan) in shape of  on line vide  Tax invoice No.IN-1568  Dtd.13.02.2019  on payment of consideration amount a sum of Rs.7,650/-.  During the warranty period the  above set was  found defective. Further  service centre  was  not available in Rayagada District .  Due to lack of service  of the O.Ps the  complainant  moved the matter  to the  O.Ps for  replacement or refund  of the price  of the above product.   But the O.Ps had  paid  deaf ear  to the genuine  complaint.  Hence, the complainant  finding no option  approached this Commission  to get relief and prayed  direct the O.Ps  to refund the  price of the  Watch a sum of Rs. 7,650/- with interest  and  compensation. Hence this complaint.

On being noticed,  the O.P No.1(Amazon) appeared  through their learned  counsel Sri  Ramesh Kumar Sana  and filed  Written version.

The O.P  No.2 not appeared though notices has been duly served  resultant made exparte.

Heard the complainant and from the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1(Amazon).  Perused the record  and the  unrebutted  affidavit  and other documents  filed by  the complainant.

Basing on the pleadings of the complainant, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

 

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainant  including  self attested Xerox copies  Tax Invoice  which was issued by the O.Ps in  favour of the complainant  Marked as Annexure-I .Issue  No.1.

As  per  Section 2(7)(ii)(a) of C.P. Act, 2019 a person can be deemed to be a consumer  when he hires or avails   of any  services for consideration which has been  paid or  promised  to be  paid. In the instant case the  complainant  had purchased the  Watch from the O.P. No.2 through  O.P. No.1(Amazan) online  purchase  on  payment  of consideration  of   Rs.7,650/- bearing Invoice No. HR-137476621 -  1819  Date.  13.02.2019  which  was issued by the O.Ps  in favour of the  complainant. Therefore the complainant falls within the  definition of consumer.

In view  of the discussion above,  the  complainant  is a Consumer under the  O.Ps as envisaged  U/S-2(7)(ii)(a) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            Accordingly   issue No. 1  is answered.

Issue    No.2&  3 .

These  two issues invite common discussion and hence  they are being taken up together.

            We  perused the documents filed by the  complainant and it proves that the complainant has purchased  a watch  from the O.P. No.2  through  the O.P. No.1(Amazon)  and after its purchase when the  above set  was found  defective the  O.Ps failed  to remove the defects as no service centre is  available  in the locality  where the  O.P.  sold their  set to the complainant. At the time of selling their products the O.Ps  ensure that  they would provide  after sale service to the  consumer  but in this case the O.Ps sold  their product and failed to  give after sale service  which is clear deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

            At this stage we  hold that if the  above product  require service  immediately after  its purchase then it can be presumed  that it  is  manufacturing defect and if a defective  product is supplied , the consumer is entitled to  get refund of the price of the product/article or to replace a new one  and also the consumer  is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost  to meet his mental  agony, financial  loss.

            In the instant case as it appears that the above product which was  purchased by the complainant had developed  defects immediately after its purchase and the  O.Ps were unable to restore  its normal  functioning during the warranty period.

            It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and had purchased above product  with an expectation to have the  effective  benefit  of use of the product, but in this case   the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the   article and  deprived of in using  the  above set.The defects were not removed  by the O.Ps and the complainant has also no  scope to make it  repair as the O.Ps have no  service centre.

The O.P. No. 1(Amazon)  have  filed written version through their learned counsel and contended   that  the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the O.P  No..1.  The O.P. No. 1is  protected  by the provisions of Section-79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. The  O.P. No.1(Amazon) neither offers  nor provides any assurance and/or offers  warranty   to the     buyers  of the  product.. The  O.P. No. 1(Amazon) is  neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 1(Amazon)  is   only  limited  to  provide on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website. The O.P  No. 1(Amazon)  taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 2019

The O.P. No. 1   in their written version relied  citations of the apex court`  prays to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P.  No.1(Amazon).

Hence it is ordered.

The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  to refund  price  of  Watch  set  a sum of Rs.7,650/- besides  Rs.1,000/-   towards mental agony    and  for  litigation expenses  to the complainant.

            The O.P. No. 1 (Amazon)   is   ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2   for early compliance of the above order.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 19^th. Day of  April, 2023 under the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

I agree

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

 (S. K. PANIGRAHI)                                              (R. K. PANDA)

       MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON  Dated.19.04.2023