DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………………..
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 26th day of September 2016.
C.C.No.78 of 2015.
Jiban Kumar Pattnaik, son of Pramod Kumar Pattanaik,
J.M.F.C.-cum-Civil Judge, Saintala, At/P.O/P.S-Saintala,
Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
The General Manager, Amazon Development Centre
India Pvt.Ltd. Regd.Office-Bridge Gateway, 8th Floor,
26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Mall Eshwaram (W) Bangalore-
60055, India.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv. for the Complainant- Sri R.Rath,
Adv.for the O.P - M/S. S.Mishra, & Associates.
Date of filing of the case:- 07.10.2015.
Date of order - 26.09.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
The complainant placed an order on line to purchase a Nokia Lumia 1520 (Black) against a cost of Rs 45,499/- on dated 01.09.2015.The order No.171-914346596-29166.
2. The complainant averred ,the payment was made through credit card and paid vide transaction No.-0503 under website of www.amazon.in. The consignment No.-T991B0113492 said to have sent by first flight couriers along with a E-mail intimation. But the consignment failed to reach due to topsy tarvy approach of the sender. The inconvenience caused is also apologized by the Amazon in on dt.28th Sept 2015 in electronic message. The complainant also stated non reaching of the booked product compels to institute the case but latter on, it is come across a message concerning the complaint is sent to the complainant’s mobile No and side by side a sum of Rs 45,499/- has been refunded to the bank account. On verification the amount actually has been deposited.
3. Prayed the discomfort meted to the complainant has surpassed all the harassment and mental agony and unnecessary payment to credit card dues and institution of a litigation .The objective on the issue is neither baseless rather attracts relief in satiety of mental anguish. Relied on Messages sent & received in photo copy, P.O.D. copy in photo copy, statement, account copy and affidavit.
4. In pursuance to notice, the O.P appeared and submitted that this O.P neither sells nor offers to sell any products and is merely on online market place. The Opposite party is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on its website. Also contended the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer under the consumer protection Act. Further contended that M/S. Amazon Development Centre India Private Limited ( ADCI) has been impleaded as a party instead of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. (ASSPL) (i.e) the company which operates the online market place. The seller in the present instance is M/S. Shop Trend India (seller) is involved in the contract of sale. Seller is not made a party such irregularity score, the complaint is liable to be rejected.
5. Further submitted in admission that any mishandling of the delivery of the product/ mobile phone is strictly attributed to the sellers, i.e M/S. shop Trend India. The mobile phone was not delivered to the complainant and post raising a claim, the buyer guarantee team of O.P found, the seller was responsible in delivering the mobile phone. So he had committed an error/default while transacting the said mobile and for customer centric approach apologized to the complainant vide email dated 28.09.2015. On contact, the O.P had given the option either for refund or delivery, accordingly a refund of Rs 45,499/- has been made in communicating vide email dated 01.10.2015. Hence in view of above, submission, it is clear no inordinate delay or latches as raised has happened rather complain promptly attended with smartly refund. Complainant is not entitled to any relief and be dropped without awarding any relief and quashed with heavy cost. Relied on documents on condition of use and with email copies.
6. Heard the counsels and perused the record and materials thereon with extensive manner in submission.
7. Perusal of the records spells the transaction made is no more a disputable one. Further it is admitted the department has committed error/fault for which the valuable electronic item/ mobile set not reached within the time as assured. The tracking procedure further strengthens that the complainant has paid and the item has not reached at the door for which the entire smart electronic platform as created by the website has failed. It is also admitted, the message has been received and complaint although attended but did not able to cope with the order for which the seller became ashamed of by giving option either to refund or delivery which amplify ,the system is not trustworthy and time boundly reliable. Entire gamut of story points to the systematic imperfection persists in the despatchment to door delivery and lastly refunded the received sum of Rs 45,499/- against the cost price of Nokia Lumia 1520 (Black) .The non delivery of the booked product created harassment and complainant sustained mental agony such incompetency compel the complainant to be in back track of option in refund.
8. Raising question on being consumer and jurisdiction we prefer take reliance on judgment- Rediff.com India Limited Vs Urmil Munjal- 2013(3) CLT 79 (NC), 2013(2) CPR 522 (NC), in which the observation as follows:-
“Consumer Protection Act,.1986 Section 2(1)(d)- Online shopping platform ( www.rediff.com)- Plea of O.P that dissatisfaction of the complainant, if any, was with the goods delivered by their vender, who has not been joined as a necessary party before the consumer forum and O.P was mere facilitator of the transaction between the seller and buyer and cannot be held liable for any deficiency of service-Held- O.P.in its written response before the district forum, clearly stated that the respondent company is engaged in business of providing services through its internet portal (www.rediff.com) to interested buyers and sellers by acting as a means of communication between them and bringing into existence contracts of sale and purchase of movable goods. If this is the declared business interest of the R.P/O.P it cannot be permitted to claim that it is providing purely gratuitous service to its customers without any consideration. It is certainly not the case of O.P that it is a charitable organization involved in e-commerce, with no business returns for itself contention of the petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,rejected- Revision petition dismissed.”
9. In view of the above noted findings in fortification to this case, which amply justify the O.P is liable for the defect and standard which is required to be maintained and deficiency committed under the law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract which has been admittedly proved ,thereby for such commission of fault & imperfection is liable to pay. Hence ordered:-
ORDER.
The O.P is hereby directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only towards compensation along with litigation expenses for the harassment and mental agony sustained within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% P.A. will accrue on the awarded money from the date of this order till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMEBR 2016.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) ( P.Samantara)
MEMBER MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
