Kerala

StateCommission

A/612/2017

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNNIKRISHNAN P - Opp.Party(s)

A SUBRAMONIAN

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.612/2017

 JUDGMENT DATED : 29.11.2017

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.310/16 on the file of CDRF,  Malappuram, order dated : 30.06.2017)

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN          : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited registered office at Brigade Gateway, 8^th floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road,

Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560 055, India

Through its authorized signatory Shri.Rahul Sundaram.

 

          By AdvocateSri.A.Subramonian, S.Manilal & VishalKhattar        

RESPONDENTS

1.  Unnikrishnan.P, S/o Balakrishna Warrier,

R/o Sivan Vaidyaratnam Road, Kottakkal,

•  

2.  Micromax Head Office,

Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18,

•  

 

 

 

 

 

3.  Apptronics Retail Hosiery Complex

Block B, Noida Exyension, Phase-2,

 Noida Uttar Pradesh-201305

Apptronics Retail, Radhey Chambers,

Pandri Taral, Mandi Gate,

Pandri, Raipur049200,Chattisgarh

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

Complainant is first opposite party in C.C.310/2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for short “district forum”, Malappuram.  The above complaint filed by first respondent in the appeal, who is hereinafter referred to as complainant, alleging deficiency of service by appellant and other opposite parties in his complaint, after enquiry, was allowed by the district forum directing  opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rupees Twenty three thousand, the price of T.V., with compensation of Rupees Ten thousand and cost of Rupees Five thousand within 30 days of the Order.  Aggrieved by that Order first opposite party /appellant has preferred this appeal with a petition to condone  delay of 80 days.

2. We heard  counsel for the appellant on the merit of the delay petition and also that of appeal filed against the order of the district forum.  Complainant through the online portal of appellant placed an order for purchasing a T.V on 26.4.2016.  A sum of Rupees Twenty three  thousand was paid by him as price for the T.V.  Delivery of the T.V on the basis of  order  of complainant was effected on 30.4.2016. Before  expiry of 10 days from the date of delivery on 8.5.2016. complainant reported to appellant that the T.V. sent to him was defective. Thereupon appellant directed him to contact the Service Centre of the manufacturer  of T.V furnishing his address.  Complainant’s case as narrated in the order of lower forum would reveal that despite repeated steps to have the assistance of service centre there was no proper assistance at all for rectifying the defects of T.V.  Again he approached the appellant for redressal of his complaint. Order of the lower court would show that the appellant sent him a reply to furnish a valid document provided by the Service Centre with reason for  not honouring the warranty and if that document was not forwarded the appellant would not be able to assist him in any manner.  Under the aforesaid circumstances complainant approached the forum and lodged the complaint against  the appellant, the manufacturer of T.V and the Service Centre.  His claim was resisted by opposite parties with the first appellant contending that it is only providing an online marketing service and it has no liability to compensate the complainant.

3.  After taking evidence and being satisfied the complainant had a genuine grievance to be redressed through the forum and the contentions raised by opposite parties are devoid of  merit  the forum has passed the Order as indicated above.

4.  Reiterating the contentions advanced before the forum which had been repelled as meritless the appellant has filed this appeal with a petition to condone delay of 80 days. We cannot appreciate the stand taken by appellant that it has no liability to compensate the applicant even if any complaint was raised over a good purchased availing its services.  Instances of production of  certificate from the Service Centre to pursue the matter for redressing his grievance which was the stand taken by appellant to contest the claim of complainant can never be accepted.  Within  10 days the complainant  raised complaint  over the T.V.purchased on the basis of order placed to  appellant paying the price thereof.  What prevented the appellant from collecting the required certificate from Service Centre directly when complainant had reported despite his earnest efforts no certificate was issued by that Centre.  It  appears  such a defence was raised by appellant to shirk its liability and shift it  to the other  opposite parties. We do not  find any merit in the appeal to have it admitted on the file of this Commission.

 

 

In the result, delay condonation petition is dismissed and appeal is rejected.

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A.612/2017

         DATED:29.11.2017