State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Director, Amazan Development ... vs Sri Amit Ghanta on 7 December, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1110/2017 ( Date of Filing : 17 Oct 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/05/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/335/2016 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. The Director, Amazan Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Through Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore - 560 055. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Amit Ghanta S/o Sh. Palash Ghanta, Vill. - Ramchandrapur, P.O. - Sajnigachia, P.S. - Kolaghat, Dist. Purba Medinipur. 2. The Manager Solution, Prathamesh Complex Building no. H, opp. Vatika Restaurant, Nasik Highway no. 3, Bhiwandia Bypass Road, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra - 421 302. 3. The Director, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A - Wing(3rd Floor), Dd-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi - 110 071. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Sarbari Datta, Mr. Vishal Khattar, Advocate For the Respondent: In-Person., Advocate Dated : 07 Dec 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member
This is an Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 which has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur in Complaint Case No. CC/335/2016 allowing the complaint on contest against the Appellant/OP No. 2 and dismissed on contest against the Respondent/OP No. 3 and ex-parte against the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 1.
The Appellant/OP No. 2 has been directed further to arrange for repairing the subject TV within one month, alternatively, to replace the same by supplying another new TV set.
The Appellant/OP No. 2 has been further directed to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tunes of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively within one month from the date of the impugned judgment and order, in default, as ordered, the Appellant/OP No. 2 will be liable to pay punitive charges of Rs. 100/- per day payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The case of the Respondent/Complainant was that the Respondent/Complainant purchased from the Appellant/OP No. 2 one HD LED TV of Model LG 24LB515A 61 CM (24inches) and serial No.FBAJ944YNU001 (stated to be a false one) at a cost of Rs. 13,101/- on 24.04.2015. The TV set was supplied by the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 1 on 29.04.2015. The TV set went out of order on 15.02.2016 and the Respondent/OP No. 3, being the manufacturer of the subject TV, was governed through a complaint registered under No.RNA1603166079562. The technician who was sent by the Respondent/OP No. 3, refused to take up the job of repairing as they, on verification of the sale receipt, discovered that the serial number recorded in the TV was not matching with that recorded in the sale receipt. It was also discovered by the said technician that the said TV was already sold on 10.03.2015 at Chennai.
The Respondent/Complainant informed the matter to the Appellant/OP No. 2 and requested it to take immediate and proper corrective measure on number of occasions but all his efforts went in vain.
The Respondent/Complainant, with a view to having his grievances legally addressed, filed the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for replacement of the TV set with a new one and also to pay compensation and cost as narrated therein. Impugned judgment and order which has been put under challenge originates from the said Complaint Case.
Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP No. 2 and the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP No. 2 submitted that the Appellant/OP No. 2 which had very large consumer base, used to operate a website through which the Appellant/OP No. 2 used to provide an online market place to the 3rd party sellers for listing their products for sale. As submitted further, the Appellant/OP No. 2 had no connection with either selling of any product or offering for sale of any product. As continued the Appellant/OP No. 2 had no rule to play towards listing of product on the website nor did it have any rule to intervene or influence any customer in any manner.
The Ld. Advocate went on to continue that the contract of sale of products on the website was strictly a bipartite one between the customer and the seller where the Appellant/OP No. 2 had the rule of a mere facilitator having no control in any manner in any sale transaction on the website. As continued further, the transaction process is governed by the "conditions of use" well elaborated in the website.
On the instant occasion, as he submitted, the Respondent No.1/Complainant booked the subject television being fully conversant about the "conditions of use" laid down in detail on the website.
The Ld. District Forum, as contended, passed the impugned judgment and order without appreciating the fact that the Respondent No.1/Complainant should not be treated as Consumer of the Appellant/OP No.1.
With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1/Complainant, per contra, gave the details of the incident in the same lines narrated in the complaint. He laid emphasized mere on the fact that the Appellant/OP had sold a television which was earlier sold to someone in Chennai.
The serial number of the television, as continued, was not identical to that recorded in the sale receipt. This mismatching between two numbers, as stated, was the cause of refusal of the technician on behalf of the Respondent/OP No. 3 to take up the job of repairing of the subject TV.
As further contended, the Appellant/OP, by selling an old television beyond the knowledge of the Respondent/Complainant resorted to an unlawful trade practice.
With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate emphasized upon upholding the impugned judgment and order dismissing the instant Appeal.
Perused the papers on record. Considered submissions made on behalf of both sides. We do not have anything to say regarding the undisputed facts like purchase of television against payment and its going out of order. The dispute appeared to have been hovering around the missteps willfully taken by the Appellant/OP, allegedly, beyond the knowledge of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant by selling the subject television which was once sold to someone else at Chennai.
The Appellant/OP in his WV at para 6 running page 76 admitted the fact that he, when the Respondent No. 1/Complainant contacted him for purchasing the TV, informed him about the fact that the item the Respondent no. 1/Complainant was going to purchase was a pre-owned one and there was a mismatching of the serial number of the product recorded in the sale receipt with that recorded on the body of the television. So, admittedly the subject television was a pre-owned one and there was a mismatch in serial numbers in two different places in respect of the same television set.
Further, the Appellant/OP claimed that the contract of sale of product through the website maintained by him was strictly a bipartite contract between a customer and seller where the rule of the Appellant/OP was limited to the extent of a facilitator. The above facts of selling a pre-owned product, however, speaks exactly contradictory to the Appellant/OP's above submission as the Appellant/OP made in its WV at para 6 referred to above, that the mis-selling of product was within its knowledge.
The unacceptability of the Appellant/OP's pleaded innocence for his being a mere facilitator in the entire process became firmer on verification of communication met between the Appellant/OP and the Respondent No.1/Complainant wherefrom it revealed that the Appellant/OP on all occasions had assured the Respondent No. 1/Complainant of required corrective steps to address the grievances of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant which the Appellant/OP would not have given had he been so much conscious about his status of a facilitator, as he claimed.
Above being the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ld. District Forum has correctly assessed the merit of the case. We, however, do not intend to be in unison with the observation of the Ld. District Forum towards awarding of the penal charges. We are also of the view that the cost and compensation have been awarded in the impugned judgment and order at a higher side and accordingly, feel that the impugned judgment and order needs to be suitably modified.
Hence, Ordered That the Appeal be and same is allowed in part. The Appellant/OP No. 2 is hereby directed to arrange for thorough repairing the subject television, alternatively, to replace the same by supplying another new TV set of the same model.
The Appellant/OP No. 2 is further directed to pay compensation and litigation cost @ Rs. 3,000/- each to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant within 45 days from the date of the instant order, in default, simple interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue to Rs. 16,101/-, being the total of the cost of the TV and compensation, from the date of default till the amount is fully realized. The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER