18/07/2019 Delivery | Westlaw India

Westlaw India Delivery Summary

Request made by : NOVUS IP USER

Request made on: Thursday, 18 July, 2019 at 13:35 IST

Client ID: inupes-1

Title : Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Chandigarh v
Gopal Krishan S/o Shyam Lal and others
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1

© 2019 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

18/07/2019 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 2

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

CHANDIGARH BENCH

17 February 2017

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Chandigarh

v
Gopal Krishan S/o Shyam Lal and others

Case No : First Appeal No. A/27/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/12/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No.
CC/570/2016 of District DF-II)

Bench : Jasbir Singh (Retd. President), Dev Raj (Member), Padma Pandey (Member)

Citation : 2017 Indlaw SCDRC 1541, 2017 (4) CPJ 112

The Judgment was delivered by : Jasbir Singh (Retd. President)

1. Appellant/Opposite Party No.6 has filed this appeal against order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), allowing a complaint
filed by respondent No.1/complainant.

2. As per facts on record, through a web domain(online portal) owned, managed and controlled by the
appellant, respondent No.1/complainant purchased a mobile handset Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 on 11.5.2016 for
an amount of Rs.9998/-. Copy of the bill has been placed on record as Annexure C-1. Payment was also
made through online. The handset was found defective as it was not working properly. It was handed over
to OP No.1 for repair on 4.7.2016. As per job card, it was to be returned on 19.7.2016. Standby handset was
not provided. When nothing was done by OP No.5, complainant again contacted the appellant - OP NO.6
online. He was told to get 'dead on arrival report'. However, the Customer Care Executive of Xiomi
Company- OP No.1/Respondent No.2 refused to provide any such certificate. When mobile handset was not
given after repair, and no satisfactory reply was given, the complainant/respondent No.1 sent a legal notice
on 25.7.2016. However, he failed to get any positive response. By alleging deficiency in providing service, a
consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum on 8.8.2016 claiming refund of the amount paid,
compensation for mental and physical harassment and amount towards legal expenses.

3. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply admitted that the mobile handset was received for
repair on 4.7.2016. It was further said that after repair, when intimation was sent to the complainant to collect
the mobile handset, he refused to do so.

OP No.5 admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was said that when mobile handset was repaired, it was
not received by the complainant.

Appellant/OP NO.6 in its defence, as noted by the Forum, said as under ;

"OP No.6 in its reply stated that the it neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an
online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their product for sale. The sellers
themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products that are listed on the website by
various third party sellers, nor does the answering OP intervene or influence any customers in any manner.
It has been admitted that the answering OP advised the complainant to get issued DOA for the product
which would in turn enable the return of the product. It is further asserted that there is no deficiency on the
part of the answering OP and requested that the complaint be dismissed against it."

4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the replies filed. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties,
evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting following relief to
respondent No.1/complainant ;

(a) To refund Rs.9,998/- being the cost of the mobile handset;

 18/07/2019 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 3

(b) To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the
complainant.

(c) To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5. Contention of the appellant that it cannot be burdened with liability, was rejected by the Forum, by noting
that the mobile handset was purchased through the appellant, in online transaction. It was bounden duty of
the facilitator to ensure that goods sold through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If
the goods purchased through online are found not up to the mark, online portal through which goods were
purchased, cannot escape its liability. It is also on record that immediately when defect was noticed, the
complainant sent intimation to the appellant. The appellant advised him to get 'dead on arrival report' which
was not given by the Customer Care Executive of other OP. It was also noted by the Forum that there were
major defects in the mobile handset. Its motherboard was defective. To say so, following passage from the
affidavit filed by the Deputy Manager (Legal) HCL Services Ltd. has been reproduced by the Forum in the
order under challenge ;

" Upon inspection found on 4.7.2016 that there was a motherboard issue with the mobile handset which
required replacement of the said part only, thereinafter a requisition was sent to OP No.1&2 for providing the
part in question; which were finally received from OP No.1&2 only on 23.8.2016, and thereafter within a
period of 01 day the mobile was repaired and the complainant was intimated to collect the same from the
premises of the OP No.2 on/around 24.8.2016."

6. It is proved on record that the complainant, after repair of the mobile handset, was intimated to collect it
on/around 20.8.2016. However, before that date, he had already filed a consumer complaint when he failed
to get any reply from the OPs.

When granting relief to the complainant, the Forum has observed as under ;

"Obviously the OPs have received the telephone on 4.7.2016 and repaired it on 24.8.2016. The inordinate
delay on the part of the OPs in repairing of the telephone tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part.
The complainant has been deprived of service of his mobile handset for which he has already paid. The OPs
cannot be permitted to hold the complainant at ransom by their callous attitude in attending the problem of
consumer. It is further found that the motherboard, which is the back-bone of the mobile handset in question
has been replaced by the OPs after finding it defective. Under these circumstances, it proves beyond doubt
that the mobile handset, which the complainant had purchased, was having manufacturing defect on the
date of its purchase."

7. We are satisfied with the reasoning given by the Forum to allow the complaint. It is on record that the
mobile handset, after purchase, was received on 4.7.2016. When it was found defective, it was handed over
for repair. Despite intimation given here and there and handing over the mobile handset for repair, when the
complainant failed to get any positive response, he lost faith in OPs and filed a consumer complaint. The
service rendered was absolutely poor and pathetic. Standby handset for use was not given.

8. Contention of Counsel for the appellant that as per terms and conditions of sale, no liability can be
fastened upon the appellant, is liable to be rejected. An agent, who sells a product, is duty bound to ensure
its quality, and if the product is found defective, agent shall be vicariously liable for the loss caused to the
purchaser, alongwith the manufacturer of the product. It was so held by the Hon'ble National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Vs Kamer Chand & Anr. Revision Petition No.765 of 2016 decided on 30.3.2016.

9. Counsel for the appellant failed to show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order
under challenge.

10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,
at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

11. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced.

Appeal dismissed
© 2015 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment,
Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or suitability of the content.
18/07/2019 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 4