IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of July, 2023.
Filed on 13.03.2023
Present
1. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President-in-charge )
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
CC/No.71/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Vasudevan Pillai 1. The Managing Director
Souparnika (Korattikkara) Amazon India, Bridgeway gate
Kakkazham P.O. 8th floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar road
Ambalappuzha Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055
Alappuzha-688005
(Party in person) 2. The Director
Customs Experience and Marketing
Amazon India, Bridgeway gate
8th floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar road
Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055
(Adv.S.Shiv Shankar & P.Arun Krishnan-
For Ops 1 & 2)
3. The Head, Dawntech Electronics Pvt.Ltd.
VSMC Logistics Park Pvt.Ltd.
Pappampatty, Appanaichenpatti road
Appanaichenpatti, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore
Tamil Nadu-641402
4. The Head
One Plus India Head Office
Flat #7 and 10, Upper ground floor
Devika tower, Nehru Palace
New Delhi-110019
5. The Head-Customer care
One plus exclusive customer care
Hira building, Muncipal No.New 213
(old #5), Ward No.76, Richmond town
Brigade road, Bangalore-560001
(Ops 3,4 &5 are exparte)
O R D E R
P.R.SHOLY (PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE)
This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a LED smart Android TV One PLUS 108 CM (43 inches) for an amount of Rs.27,999/- on 21.11.2021 through online platform of Amazon. One day, a person stated to be a delivery agent of Amazon, handed over the parcel from Amazon containing the TV including its invoice. The payment was through credit card of the complainant’s son. As per the invoice the TV has been sold to the complainant, for Amazon, by DAWNTECH Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641402. A technician came from the service center fitted the TV. As per the warranty details the said TV had a warranty of one year and there was a warranty of 2 years for the panel. An amount of Rs.1348/- was also remitted towards extended warranty of 2 years.
2. On 27.12.22 while the complainant was viewing the TV, it stopped functioning. The complainant immediately filed a complaint in the matter – COMPLAINT ID – INHI221228603. On 29.12.22 a technician named Shivadas stated to be from the service center checked the TV and informed that the complaint is with the mother board and only the solution is to replace the TV. He also informed that he will take steps to inform the matter to the service head and the company and will arrange replacement. On 3.01.23 a technician again came home and took away the TV. Afterwords there was no response. Then the complainant filed another complaint on 09.01.2023. On filing this complaint the company official Smt.Navarathanmal, a senior member of One Plus TV contacted the complainant on the same day itself and informed that the company will sent a voucher code by mail. Accordingly, at 7.26 PM a company official sent the communication containing the voucher code. The communication states that by using this voucher code, they can place a fresh order for the same TV model and thus obtain a new TV. The voucher code was MMIDSFBNFEIJFI-MODEL 43Y1 – expiry date 30.04.23.
3. Accordingly the complainant used the voucher code to proceed further for the purchase. But the complainant was unable to proceed with the purchase due to some problems unknown to him. When the matter was informed to the service centre on 02.02.23, they also tried to proceed with the purchase. But they were also unable to proceed further. They understood that the voucher code provided was wrong. When they contacted the customer care in the matter on 02.02.23 itself they confirmed that there is some technical error in the voucher code communicated by the company. They informed that the company has promised to provide a new voucher code within 48 hours. However no voucher code has yet been provided by the company even though the complainant filed 2 more complaints. In response to the above complaints the customer service department of Amazon sent a mail to the complainant on 21.02.23 admitting the receipt of the complaints. The mail further informs that a customer service associate of the company will contact within the next 6 hours with a new voucher code and thereby rectification to the problem. However no one has contacted. As such the matter has not yet been resolved by the company even though the complainant had been contacting the customer care of the company repeatedly. The opposite party company Amazon was bound to find an immediate remedy to the problem. However the company has turned a blind eye to the request of the complainant even though they are convinced that the TV is defective and can never be repaired, will become faulty immediately and hence needs replacement as the only remedy informed by the technician. The action on the part of opposite parties is utter injustice, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
4. The complainant believes that since the problem started from 27.12.22, within the warranty period, the TV is manufactured by the company, even if replaced, will never provide satisfactory performance. Also, there is no proper service since the replacement has not became a reality which has put the complainant and his family in utter difficulties. As such, the complainant has lost faith in the company / manufacturer/ product manufactured by the company and therefore wants the opposite parties to accept back the product and refund its cost with interest. Hence this complaint for refund of amount of Rs.27,999/- + Rs.2249/- being the amount paid for the TV with 15 % interest along with compensation Rs.1.5 lakhs on different heads.
5. The averments in the version of 1 & 2 opposite parties are as follows:-
Opposite party No.1 and 2 merely operates an e-commerce market place where independent third-party sellers list their products for sale. Any seller is free to list any product for sale and any buyer is free to choose and order any product from any independent third party seller selling that product on market place. The opposite party No.1 and 2 do not place any advertisement for any product on its e-commerce marketplace and any offer of promotion is solely made by the seller of the product. The payment of consideration for the impugned product was made by the complainant to the seller in adherence of the notification of RBI dated 24.11.2009. The payment made into the nodal account is not a payment made to ASSPL/ opposite party No.1 & 2. The complainant purchased “ One plus 108 cm (43 inches) Y series full HD LED smart Android TV 43Y1 (Black) (2020 model) | B08B42HNH7 (OP_43Y1) HSN: 85287219” vide order ID -171-5332915-2941913 on 21.11.2021for an amount of Rs.27,999/- and the same product was delivered to the complainant in intact condition on 23.11.2021. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 is not responsible for providing warranty as the return/ Replacement window for the impugned product expired on 03.12.2021.
6. No specific allegation has been made against the opposite party NO.1 and 2. Opposite party No.1 and 2 being an intermediary is in no manner responsible for any alleged manufacturing defect as the same falls within the purview of the manufacturer/ opposite party No.4. the complainant being aware of the liabilities of the opposite parties have himself admitted that the complainant immediately filed a complaint with the manufacturer and a technician visited the complainant from the customer service of the manufacturer/ opposite party No4 (impleaded as opposite party No.5) for checking the impugned product. It is therefore evident from the same that the complainant’s grievance is solely attributable to the services provided by the manufacturer/ opposite party No.4, service center of manufacture/ opposite party No.5 and / or opposite party No.3 opposite party No.1 and 2 has been unnecessary impleaded in the present dispute and hence, the complaint with respect to opposite party No.1 and 2 is liable to the dismissed. Complainant has never approached the opposite party No.1 and 2 regarding his grievance neither the opposite party 1 and 2 are liable for providing any after sale services, as opposite party No.1nad 2 are merely an intermediary and the grievance of the complainant can only be addressed by the manufacturer. No cause of action arose against opposite party No.1 and 2 as there has been no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and 2. Opposite party No.1 and 2 has only provided an e-commerce marketplace and therefore, cannot be held liable for the alleged manufacturing defect in the impugned product. Opposite party No.1 and 2 responsible neither for providing any refund/ replacement nor for providing any compensation for mental agony or legal expenses. Any grievance ought to be addressed solely by the manufacturer / opposite party No.4, service center of manufacturer / opposite party No.5 and / or opposite party No.3.
7. In the above pleading the following points are raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to refund the purchase cost of the disputed TV from the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation from opposite parties?
- Reliefs and cost?
8. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A3 and A4 series from the part of complainant and Ext.B1 to B6 from the part of opposite parties.
9. Point No.1 to 3
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A3 and A4 series.
10. Opposite parties 1 and 2 produced 6 documents which marked as Exts.B1 to B6.
11. Opposite parties 3 to 5 are remain exparte.
12. Complainants case is that he had purchased a One plus 108 LED smart Android TV from the online site of 1 and 2 opposite parties which manufactured by opposite party No.4 and sold by 3rd opposite party on 21.11.2021 for an amount of Rs.27,999/-. After installing the said TV, during the period while the same was watching it stopped working on 27.12.2022. Though the technician was inspected the said TV on complaining the defect, it was not cured, but informed that the only solution is to replace the TV since the complaint is with the mother board. Even contacted the various officials of the opposite parties, the problem was not solved. Though the opposite parties provided a voucher code for ordering a fresh TV of same model, the same also could not be proceeded by the complainant as well as the officials of the service centre,. There after the opposite parties promised to provide another voucher code. However no voucher code was yet been provided by the opposite parties, even though the complainant filed two more complaints. It is also submitted that since the opposite parties has provided no satisfactory performance even within the period of warranty the complainant has lost faith in the company and therefore wants the opposite parties to accept back the product and refund its cost with interest for which this complaint filed.
13. In response to the complaint the opposite parties 1 and 2 only appeared and filed version mainly contenting that they are only the online marketing place providing products of various company for choice of the customers. If there is any defect occurred to the said products the manufacturer only responsible for the same. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
14. The other opposite parties 3,4 5 who are the retailer and manufacturer of the disputed TV were proceeded with expare since the notice along with copy of complaint returned as ‘left’.
15. Admittedly the disputed TV was purchased by the complainant through the online platform of opposite parties 1 and 2. Ext.A1 and A3 are the tax invoice issued by opposite parties 1 and 2. It is also noted that the said product was sold by 3rd opposite party. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill of the TV and Ext.A3 is the purchase bill of extended warranty for post period of 2 years from the expiry of 1 year manufacturer warranty. Accordingly the alleged complaint of the TV occurred within the period of extended warranty and hence the opposite parties are bound to cure the complaint of the said TV. However on perusal of Ext.A4 series, though the complainant had taken repeated efforts by intimating the matter to the opposite parties, they did not pay any heed except sending reply messages for regretting. In the said circumstance the complainant also succeeds to the alleged losing of faith towards the opposite parties performance in future. Accordingly we are constrained to allow the complaint in the matter of refund of the purchase cost of the disputed TV. As held by the
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd. V Arun Kumar (In Appleal No.187/2019 decided on 29.11.19) that “the plea of the said portal is a market place, wherein, third party vendors/ sellers who wish to use the platform, register themselves as vendors/ sellers and lost their products and offer the said products for sale. The said pleas taken by the appellants has no value at all because the appellants, ie, Flipkart Internet pvt.Ltd. is well established company and using there platform the other companies sell their products and if the purchaser receives a different product, which was not ordered by him, the appellants are also equally responsible along with opposite parties No.3 and, as such, the Forum while passing the impugned order rightly held that opposite parties 1 and 2 ie, the appellants are also liable if the product sold by a third party seller on their platform turned to be defective product or otherwise”.
16. In the said circumstance we hold the same view in this case and impose liability to all the opposite parties. However we limit Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony sustained by the complainant in the matter. These points are answered accordingly.
17. Point No.4
In the result complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms:-
A. opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.27,999/- being the purchase price of the TV plus Rs.1348/- being the price of extended warranty (Total amount Rs.29,347/-) to the complainant within one month from receipt of copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.
B. Complainant is entitled Rs.5,000/- as compensation from opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally.
C. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 31st day of July, 2023.
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Vasudevan Pillai (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd.21.11.2021
Ext.A2 - Warranty card
Ext.A3 - Tax Invoice dtd.21.11.2021
Ext.A4 series - Copy of message & E-mails (10 Nos)
Evidence of the opposite parties:
Ext.B1 - Copy of Board resolution dated.21.02.2023
Ext.B2 - Copy of invoice dtd.21.11.2021
Ext.B3 - Copy of RBI directions
Ext.B4 - Print out of return policy as available on Amazon.in
Ext.B5 - Screen shot of information with respect to the warranty of the impugned product
Ext.B6 - Conditions of use and sale
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
