ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 12.05.2023 Date of Reserve : 22.07.2024 Date of Decision : 14.08.2024 Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Registered Office : at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bengaluru-560055, Karnataka, India through its authorized signatory Mr.Rahul Narayanan.

And : (90) 1401 to 1421, 14^th Floor, Block E, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110019.

…..Appellant/Opposite party No.1 Versus

1. Dr.Ajaydeep Singh, R/o 119, Defence Colony, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001.

….Respondent No.1/complainant

2. Cloudtail India Private Limited, Farrukh Nagar, through its Manager or appropriate authority, Logistic Park LLP, Farrukhnagar, District Gurgaon, Village Khalikpur, District Jhajjar, Haryana, 122001.

….Respondent/opposite party No.2 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 02.03.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mr.Vishav Kant Garg, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for Sh.Atul Goyal, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Dr.Ajaydeep Singh, in person For respondent No.2 : Ex-parte HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party No.2 – Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, against the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) was partly allowed and both the opposite parties were jointly and severally held liable for the deficiency in service and were directed to refund the price of the LED i.e. Rs.64,999/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 30.09.2019. The complainant was directed to return the LED to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the award amount against receipt. The opposite parties were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant Dr.Ajaydeep Singh purchased one 43 inch Sony Bravia TV from the website of opposite party No.1 and the TV was sold by opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. There was a scheme of OAKTER Smart Home Kit which was to be delivered free of cost with the TV. The complainant received invoice dated 02.10.2019 on his email, whereby it was mentioned that the TV is 43” in size and was to be delivered along with OAKTER Smart Home Kit Offer. On delivering of the TV, the complainant was surprised to see that the TV supplied was only of 38” instead of 43” and OAKTER Smarthome Kit was also not supplied as committed by the opposite parties. On this, the complainant asked the opposite parties for replacement of TV with immediate effect. He even called the customer care helpline number of Amazon and requested them to take back the product but their officials refused to return the TV, which amounts to deficiency in service as the delivery was not as per the promises made by the opposite parties. This is also the violation of policy of Amazon of Free Open Box delivery, which includes the Open Box Inspection at the time of delivery to ensure the delivery of same product in proper order. This service is available on pre-paid schedule delivery orders for TV, microwave, washing machine and refrigerator products. In case the product found to be defective or otherwise damage, the customer can refused to take the delivery can refund will be credited to his account. The order of the complainant was also covered under the same policy having