Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/110/2020

Rachita Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Seller Services - Opp.Party(s)

Rahil Mahajan

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/110/2020
Date of Institution	:	27/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	04/11/2022

 

Rachita Singh daughter of Sh. Tejit Singh resident of House No.265, Sector 11A, Chandigarh, 160011.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, 26/1, Brigade Gateway, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055.
2. Orient Electric Limited, 240, Okhla Industrial estate Phase-3, New Delhi-110020.
3. Vrinda Enterprises, B-60 Near Laxmi Dharam Kanta, Badli Extension, New Delhi-110042.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Rahil Mahajan, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Chetan Gupta, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	None for OP No.2.
	:	OP No.3 deleted vide order dated 8.4.2021.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a coffee machine from the Opposite Party, through the online portal Amazon. The complainant placed the order on 2.9.2019 and with the cost of Rs.24,999/- alongwith one year warrantee (Annexure C-2). As per complainant, on 25.10.2019 it was to the utmost shock of the complainant that the coffee machine purchased by her was defective as it had stopped working. The complainant informed OP No.1 regarding the said defect as well as regarding non warranty card receiving (Annexure C-4). The complainant had received an email from OP No.1 acknowledging the defect in the product as well as stated that the product had been purchased by the online portal of it and company takes full responsibility to resolve the said issue (Annexure C-6). But all in vain. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP No.1 & 2 (Annexure C-9), but only OP No.1 had replied (Annexure C-10). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case, as per Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., the complainant has wrongly approached this Hon’ble Forum against it on a misunderstanding that she is a consumer of it. It is submitted that the present issues raised by the complainant pertain to the alleged manufacturing defects as detected in the product. The complainant had purchased the product from the independent third party seller i.e., Vrinda Enterprises (OP No.3) and not from it. The product is neither sold nor manufactured by it. In addition, thereof, no services have been provided by it. The role of it is limited to that of a facilitator and not the seller/ manufacturer, and it is neither liable nor responsible for any actions or inactions of the seller/manufacturer nor any breach of conditions representations or warranties by the seller or manufacturer of the product. However, it is submitted that it is only online ecommerce market platform where buyers and sellers transact to purchase goods and services. It is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the complaint. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, hence OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case, as per it, the coffee machine allegedly purchased by the complainant has neither been sold by the it nor through any of its authorized dealers OP No.2. It is also submitted that it (OP No.2) has not any connection with the said entity, namely Vrinda Enterprises (OP No.3). Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, hence OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4.     The complaint against OP No.3 deleted vide order dated 8.4.2021.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 and gone through the record of the case.
8.     It is evident from Annexure C-2, that the complainant purchased the Coffee Machine Delonghi EC685.R 1300- Watt Espresso Coffee Machine (Red) dated 2.9.2019 for Rs.24,999/- from the portal of OP No.1. OP No.2 is the distributor/importer of the said coffee machine manufactured by OP No.1. OP No.3 is the retailer/wholesaler of the said coffee machine. As per Annexure C-3, the coffee machine in question is having one year warranty. As per Annexure C-4 email dated 25.10.2019, the complainant raised the issue of non-issuance of free one year warranty card as the machine did not function in an appropriate manner since beginning. Various emails were exchanged between the complainant and the OP No.1. Genuine grievance regarding the defect in the coffee machine in question could not be resolved. Ultimately legal notice was issued but no action had been taken of the OPs to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant till date. The machine is defective one. Despite being in litigation through the present complaint, OPs did not resolve the issue. Name of OP No.3 was deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 08.04.2021, on the request of the complainant vide application dated 31.3.2021.
9.     The stand taken by OP No.1 (Amazon) is that it is mere a platform/e-commerce marketplace in the present case. The product in question was purchased from third party seller that is OP No.3 for the purpose of repairs the complainant was told to get a service denial letter or the job sheet of the service centre from OP No.3, but it was complainant herself who failed to share the documents sought from her by OP No.3. Hence the replacement of the product in question denied to the complainant by OP No.3. Therefore, it cannot be held liable for any kind of deficiency in service.
10.     On the other hand, it has been contended by the OP No.2 that neither it has sold the product to the complainant nor it is authorized dealer of the product in question. It has been further contended that the after sale services were offered to the complainant on chargeable basis, but it is complainant herself who refused the same. Hence, it cannot be held liable for any kind of deficiency in service.
11.     After going through the entire record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant chose online portal of OP No.1 trusting its brand and name to invest her hard earned money to purchase expensive gift for her daughter to the tune of Rs.24,999/- and the consideration was also paid to OP No.3 through Amazon only. In a way OP No.3 is alien for the complainant. We feel that the product in question was ordered trusting the brand and name of the big online portal that is (OP No.1) Amazon.

         Hence, the act of OP No.1 for not taking proper follow up despite getting information of non-issuance of warranty card through (email C-4) and thereafter its own assurance email (Annexure C-6) dated 28.10.2019. Perusal of Annexure C-6, clearly reveals that the OP No.1 (Amazon) itself assured the complainant saying not to worry as she purchased the product from Amazon so it is completely their responsible to resolve the issue, but in our view OP No.1 has taken contradictory stand in its reply. Moreover, Annexure C-3, the warranty card makes it abundantly clear that the product in question was having complete one year warranty. But it was negligent/inactive attitude of OP No.1 & 2 who did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant for repair/refund of the machine in question that too within the warranty period. Hence, the act of the OP No.1 & 2 for selling substandard product, non-providing after sale services, non-issuance of the warranty card for a brand new product proves deficiency in services and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.

12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹24,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this present complaint till realization. The complainant shall, however, return the coffee machince in question to the OPs.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved or alleged against Opposite Party No.3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
04/11/2022			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member