DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 12/10/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 473/2022

COMPLAINANT

Akhil P.S., S/o. Suresh P.R., Padath House, Pallipport P.O., Pin 683515

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Amazon India, 26/1, Bridg Gateway, 8^th Floor, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwar (West) Bengaluru, Karnataka 560055.

(Rep. by Adv. Vinidha K., Thrissur 3)

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a Sony WF (1000XMS (TWS) wireless ear buds from the opposite party vide order No. 4081725773-60722330 on 08/04/2022. Since the product received from the opposite party was not in good working condition, it was handed over to the opposite party on 17/04/2022. Opposite party’s representative came and checked the product and the item was received by the opposite party on 19/04/2022. But the amount was not refunded to the complainant stating the reason that there is a slight difference in the product they received from the complainant. On 19/04/2022 there was a message from the opposite party at their site that ‘the item received and your refund will be initiated shortly’. The opposite party has not refunded the amount to the complainant. Hence the complainant has approached the Commission for getting the refund of the product.

2. Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 26/10/2022. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed their version.

3. Version of opposite party

The complainant returned the product as it was not in proper working condition and hence the delivered product was picked up. However when the fulfilment centre of opposite party inspected the returned product, they observed that an incorrect product was returned by the complainant which was different from the product which was ordered and delivered to him. Hence the complainant was instructed to return the correct item in order to process a refund. This was informed to the complainant by opposite the party through e-mail. It is again reiterated that opposite party being merely the e-commerce marketplace operator is not responsible for quality and assurance of the product. The legal position of the opposite party that it is an e-commerce marketplace that provides merely technical and ancillary support to facilitate sale transactions entered by and between the buyer and the independent third-party seller. The product in question has been purchased by the complainant from the independent third-party seller ie. Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. and the same is evident from the invoice that was issued by the independent third-party indicating its PAN and GSTN against the invoice. The complainant has made the payment of consideration against the invoice directly to the independent third-party seller in the nodal account set up in accordance with the RBI notification bearing No. RBI/2009-10/231 dated 24/11/2009 and opposite party has no claim over the consideration amount. The claim of the complainant is to be rejected since there is no cause of action against the opposite party and hence the value of the claims and the prayer does not suffice.

4. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 and A2. No other evidence from the side of the complainant. Opposite party has not adduced any documentary or oral evidence.

Exbt. A1:         Tax Invoice for Rs.9,990/- (order dated 08/04/2022)

As per Exbt. A2 the item was received by the opposite party in 19/04/2022 and the complainant had obtained a message from the opposite party that the refund will be initiated shortly. The complainant alleges that the opposite party has not refunded the amount to the complainant even after so many phone calls are made to the opposite party.

We have thoroughly observed the facts of the case, version filed by the opposite party and the evidence filed in the case. In the proof affidavit filed by the complainant he has affirmed that he hasn’t received the amount. The opposite party has not produced any contra evidence in this case to prove that they have refunded the amount to the complainant.         

5. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

The case of the complainant is that the product purchased by the complainant vide order No. 4081725773-60722330 was returned to the opposite party since it was not in good working condition. The product was returned to the Amazon on 17/04/2022 and the item was received by the Amazon on 19/04/2022 but the refund for the product was not obtained to the complainant so far.

The opposite party in their version also states that an incorrect product was returned by the complainant which was ordered and delivered to the complainant and the opposite party being e-commerce marketplace operator is not responsible for quality and assurance of the product. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that an incorrect product was received from the complainant. The consumer complaint was filed as per Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Consumer Protection Act Rule 2020 Rule (4)(10) states that every e-commerce entity shall effect all payments towards accepted refund requests of the consumers as prescribed by the RBI or any other competent authority under any law for the time being in force, within a reasonable period of time, or as prescribed under applicable laws. Hence opposite party is liable to return the amount to the complainant and since they have not adduced any documentary evidence to prove that the amount to be refunded was transferred to the bank account of the complainant. Issue No. (1) and (2) are found in favour of the complainant and the following orders are hereby passed.

1. The opposite party shall refund Rs.9,990/- (Rupees nine thousand nine hundred ninety only) to the complainant.
2. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied with by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is not complied with within 45 days the amount ordered vide (1) above shall attract interest at the rate of 9% annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27^th day of September, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A1: Tax Invoice for Rs.9,990/- (order dated 08/04/2022)

Exhibit A2:  Copy of Screen shot

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 473/2022

Order Date: 27/09/2024