Amazon India V/S Aakanksha - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/299/2021

Aakanksha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Kashyap

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

Complaint No. 299 of 2021

Date of instt. 01.07.2021

Date of Decision:25.07.2023

Aakansha daughter of Shri Jagdish Kashyap, resident of House no.313, Sector-29, Alpha City, Karnal, aged about 20 years (Aadhar 5227 0869 2382)

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. Amazon Seller Service Private Ltd. Brigade Gateway, 8^th floor, 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwarem (west) Banglore (Karnataka) through its Managing Director.

2. Sahilesh Kumar, 710, Neelkanth Plaza, near Kiran Chowk to Yogi Chowk Road, Surat (Gujrat) 395010.

3. Shri Ganpati Trades (Neutrogna Store) 934, Banso Gate, Novelty Cinema Road, Karnal through its owner.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

Argued by: Shri Jagdish Kashyap, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.1.

OP no.2 exparte.

Shri Rajinder, proprietor on behalf of OP no.3.

(Jaswant Singh, president)

ORDER:

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 posted at their site a sunscreen cream with the name of Ultra Sher Dry-Touch, Sun block SPF 50+, 88ml. manufactured by OP no.3 with the sale price of Rs.499/-. The OP no.2 is the seller of said product. The complainant placed an order for said product on 28.10.2020, vides order no.171-4898134-0017130 and made the online payment of the same. The said product was delivered to the complainant by OP no.2 through OP no.1 and when the complainant opened the box, then she found that tube supplied to the complainant was having weight of 118ml whereas in the site its weight is mentioned as 88ml. After getting the said product the complainant applied the same on her face but she was surprised and shocked to see that said product instead of protecting her from sunlight rather caused harm to the face of the complainant as many pimples came out on the face of the complainant due to which her face become ugly and she has to remain locked herself in her house and could not go for her study which has resultantly affected the study of the complainant who is student of LL-B of NLU Sonepat. The complainant has to spent more than an amount of Rs.20,000/- for getting her pimples treated. After that complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs by stating that the said product is fake one. After that the complainant has been receiving telephonic calls that the product having 88ml quantity is not available and that they can replace the said product having capacity of 118ml. After that the complainant of her own made enquires about the said product of the OP no.3, then it has been revealed that the OP no.3 has not been manufacturing the aforesaid capacity with 118ml and that company has been manufacturing only product having capacity of 88ml and 30ml. Only, thus in this way the OPs no1 and 2 have delivered a duplicate product to the complainant and by selling such type of fake product have been playing with the lives of the consumers. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2. On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Amazon Seller Service Private Ltd. (ASSPL) i.e. OP no.1 operates and manages the e-commerce marketplace i.e.

3. OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 09.06.2022 of the Commission.

4. OP no.3 appeared and filed its separate written version stating therein that OP no.3 is involved in the business of stocking, marketing, distributing and selling various consumer care product of various companies. The complainant had purchased a product i.e. Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch, Sunblock SPF 50+ Sunscreen from OP no.1 and OP no.2 delivered the said product through OP no.1 to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant faced some issue with the product and developed some skin problem. The complainant reached out to the brand owners who apprised the complainant that the product which the complainant has bought from OP no.1 is counterfeit product and does not belong to the brand owners. The brand owners further submitted that they market only two SKU’s of the said product in 88ml and 30ml whereas the one bought by the complainant was of 118ml. In order to facilitate the communication during the pandemic times, the brand owner took his assistance as he was the authorized distributor of the brand owners. This was his only limited role in the entire transaction. OP no.3 neither supplied the product, nor manufactured the product, nor listed the product on the OP no.1’s website, nor did he collect any payment for the product, nor suggested any remedy to the complainant. The role of the OP no.3 was merely a facilitator who was engaged by the brand owner for communicating with the complainant. Hence, it is amply clear the OP no.3 should be removed from the list of the parties as he has not involved whatsoever and prayed for dismissal of the complaint quo OP no.3.

5. Parties then led their respective evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of order dated 28.10.2020 Ex.C1, copy of payment information Ex.C2, copy of tax invoice/bill Ex.C3, copies of photos of cream 188ml Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of comment on dated 27.01.2021 Ex.C6, copy of advertisement on Amazon of Neutrogena cream 88ml Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 16.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundaram Ex.RW1/A, copy of board resolution Ex.OP1, cop of resolution Board of Directors Ex.OP2, copy of condition of use Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 04.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8. On 04.05.2023, OP no.3 has suffered a statement that written version filed by him be read as evidence of OP no.3.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and representative of the OP no.3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10. Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant placed an order of product i.e. sunscreen cream with the name of Ultra Sheer Dry touch, Sun Block SPF 50+, 88ml from the site of the OP no.1. When the box was opened, complainant found that the product is of 118ml. Complainant applied the said product on her face and after applying the same, she noticed that the pimples have become on her face as the product supplied by the OP was a duplicate product. Complainant has spent Rs.20,000/- on her treatment. Complainant enquired about the product, then she came to know that the OP no.3 has not been manufacturing the aforesaid product with 118ml capacity. OPs no.1 and 2 have delivered a duplicate product to the complainant and by selling such type of fake product, OPs have been playing with the life of the consumers and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP is only a facilitator. OP is neither a manufacturer nor the seller of the product in question. OP has been unnecessarily and wrongly arrayed as a party to the present complaint. He further argued that independent Third Party Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listing and products on the e-commerce marketplace. OP is not responsible for the performance, output, usability etc. of the products and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

12. Shri Rajinder proprietor, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently submitted that OP no.3 neither supplied the product, nor manufactured the product, nor listed the product on the OP no.1’s website, nor did he collect any payment for the product, nor suggested any remedy to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

13. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14. As per version of the complainant, she has placed an order of product i.e. sunscreen cream with the name of Ultra Sheer Dry touch, Sun Block SPF 50+, 88ml from the site of the OP no.1. When the box was opened, she found that the product is of 118ml capacity instead of 88ml. Complainant applied the said product on her face and after applying the same, complainant noticed pimples on her face as the product supplied to her was a duplicate one.