Haryana

StateCommission

A/1328/2017

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VANDANA MALHOTRA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

KOHLI

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No. 1328 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 06.11.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 19.12.2019

 

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (named as “Amazon India” in the complaint)

At:

Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055. Karnataka.

Through its Authorized Representative.

 

 

…..Opposite Party No.3/Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Vandana Malhotra wife of Rajneesh Malhotra, resident of House No.935, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

…..Complainant/Respondent No.1

 

2.      One Plus India, Flat No.7 & 10, Upper Ground Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

 

3.      Mobile Zone Care, Booth No.12, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

4.      M/s. Rocket Kommerce LLP, Varshini Apartments, Flat No.B3, N No.13, Eswaran Kovil St., West Mambalam, Chennai-600033.

 

…..Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4/Respondents No.2 to 4

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Neeraj Sahni, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Varun Chawla, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Respondents No.2 to 4 already proceeded ex parte.   

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

 

Opposite party No.3-Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, whereby complaint filed by complainant-Vandana Malhotra, was allowed and the opposite parties directed to refund the cost of handset of `29,999/- to her along with interest @ 9% per annum and `2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.      Upon notice, the complainant, who is respondent No.1 put in appearance. Respondents No.2 to 4 were also served by publication but they did not put in appearance and accordingly proceeded ex parte.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant states that the impugned order has already been satisfied and as such the appellant is no more interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, he may be allowed to withdraw the appeal.

4.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 confirms the factum of satisfaction of the impugned order and accordingly he has no objection if the appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal.

5.      In view of the above, the appeal is hereby disposed of as having been withdrawn.

 

 

Announced 19.12.2019

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.