Haryana

Karnal

CC/301/2017

Shelender Panchal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Manjeet Kamboj

08 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.301 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 11.09.2017

                                                         Date of decision:08.11.2018

 

Shelender Panchal son of Shri Sumer Chand aged about 40 years, resident of village Uchani, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Amazon India, Brigade Gateway 8^th Floor 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Mallesh Waram (W), Banglore-560055, Karnataka, India through its Manager.

2. SIDHBALI Enterprise, village Nagla Tashi, Kankaer Sardhana Road, Meerut village Nangla Tehsil Kanka Khera Sardhana Road, Meerut village Nangla Tehsil Kanka Khera Sardhana Road Meerut, 250001 through its proprietor/Partner.

3. Pental Technologies Pvt. Ltd. E-33 Sector-63, Noida-201301, U.P. India, 6.6 Center+91120-4805200 through its MD/G.M.

 

                                                               …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Manjit Kamboj Adv. for complainant.

                Shri Lalit Chopra Advocate for OP no.1.

                OPs no.2 and 3 exparte.

                               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on 30.08.2017 he booked a Tab on the Amazon site i.e. OP no.1 and pay the amount of Rs.7499+Delivery Charges Rs.150/-, this amount was deducted in his account through Debit Visa Card. On 1.9.2017 the OP no.1 dispatched the booked item (mobile Tab) as the message received by the Amazon site. On 4.9.2017 the packed had delivered to complainant through courier agent. After received the pack, the complainant opened the pack, he was very surprised to see that the Tab was not in original form and the same was broken/cutted in the S.D. card sloot then complainant put the sim in the sim tray and turn on the Tab, but quit surprise the Tab show the Sim but not connect the network. It means the Tab is defected one and also there is not sealed with the company seal. The abovesaid Tab is tampered, second hand, repaired, defected one.  The complainant turn on that Tab and cheque its handwear information and got shocked to know that in the description shows as on interest and also on the pack is wrong one and where print the 2GB Ram and 16GB Internal memory but very surprise to know that the said Tab has 1.12 GB Ram and 11.87 Internal memory. The complainant approached the Amazon site through Toll Free no.180030009009 in this regard but they did not give any satisfactory reply. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that OP no.1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the Website. The OP no.1 is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. It is further stated that the OP no.1 is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 2.4.2018 and 23.10.2017 respectively.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 5.6.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundaram Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 25.10.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Mobile Tab online from the OP no.1. He further argued that when complainant received the said Tab he found that it was not in original form and the same was broken in the S.D. card. He further argued that when complainant put the sim in the sim tray and turn on the Tab, the Tab show the Sim but not connect the network. He further argued that the Tab is defected one and also there is not sealed with the company seal. He further argued that the said Tab is tampered, second hand, repaired, defected one.  He further argued that in the description shows as on interest and also on the pack is wrong one and where print the 2GB Ram and 16GB Internal memory but  the said Tab has 1.12 GB Ram and 11.87 Internal memory. He further prayed for allow the complaint with cost. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1  argued that OP no.1 is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has purchased a Mobile Tab in question from the OPs for a sum of Rs.7499/-plus delivery charges Rs.7649/-, copy of bill/invoice is Ex.C1. Complainant alleged that he received a defective Mobile Tab from OP no.1. In support of his allegations complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11. On perusal of these documents, it clearly shows that OPs sent a defective Mobile Tab to the complainant. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and opted to be proceeded exparte. Hence evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. OP no.1 is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the OP no.1. It is the duty of the OPs no.2 and 3 if their product is defective one they replaced the same. Therefore, the OPs no.2 and 3 are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to replace the mobile Tab in question with a new one of the same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the Mobile Tab of the same make and model is not available with the OPs, then OPs no.2 and 3 will return the cost of the mobile Tab in question i.e. Rs.7499/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.3500/- as cost of litigation and harassment etc. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:08.11.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member