Back
H
H.. PP.. SSTTAATTEE CCO
ON
NSSU
UM
MEER
R D
DIISSPPU
UTTEESS R
REED
DR
REESSSSAALL
CCO
OM
MM
MIISSSSIIO
ON
N SSH
HIIM
MLLAA
First Appeal No. : 86/2017
Date of Presentation: 26.12.2016
Order Reserved On : 08.05.2017
Date of Order
: 17.07.2017
……
Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd. resident of 8th Floor Brigade
Gateway 26/1 Raj Kumar Road Bengaluru Karnataka 560055.
…… Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1.
Jaskaran Singh care of Harmohinder Kaur Kailash Kutir
Near Dr. Mahajan Clinic Ram Nagar Dharamshala.
……Respondent No.1/Complainant
2.
Trackon Couriers Private Ltd. A-64 Naraina Industrial Area
Phase-I New Delhi 110028.
……Respondent No.2/opposite party No.2
Coram
Hon’ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon’ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon’ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant
:
Mr. Vijay K. Verma Advocate.
For RespondentNo.1 :
In person.
For Respondent No.2:
Mr. Diwan Singh Negi Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1.
Present appeal is filed under section 15 of
Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 18.10.2016
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jaskaran Singh & Anr.
(F.A. No.86/2017)
2
passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint
No.41/2016 title Jaskaran Singh Versus Amazon India Brigade
Gateway & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2.
Jaskaran Singh filed consumer complaint under
section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein
that complainant purchased a Micromax 40T2810FHD 40
inches LED TV from Amazon website. It is pleaded that order
was placed on 12.02.2015. It is further pleaded that when
package arrived it was found that product was faulty. It is
pleaded that half of the screen of TV did not work. It is further
pleaded that matter was reported to Amazon by way of
telephone. It is further pleaded that after numerous calls and
emails Amazon told the complainant to send package at the
responsibility of complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite
party told complainant that courier pick up would pick up the
faulty product. Prayer for acceptance of complaint sought.
3.
Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party
No.1 Amazon seller services private limited pleaded therein that
entity operating the URL www.amazon.in is Amazon Seller
Services Private Limited. It is pleaded that ASSPL neither sells
nor offer to sell any product and merely provide a market place
and act as facilitator only. It is pleaded that third party sellers
are responsible and ASSPL is not responsible. It is pleaded that
ASSPL is not involved in the sale transaction between customer
and seller. It is pleaded that complainant has not purchased
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jaskaran Singh & Anr.
(F.A. No.86/2017)
3
the goods from ASSPL and it is pleaded that complainant has
not paid any consideration amount to ASSPL. It is pleaded that
seller in the present case is Cloudtail India Private Ltd. who is
not impleaded as co-party and complaint is not maintainable for
non-impleadment of necessary parties. It is pleaded that
complainant has not impleaded manufacturer of the product i.e.
Micromax. It is pleaded that present complaint is also bad for
non-joinder of Micromax as necessary party. It is pleaded that
there is no privity of contract between opposite party No.1 and
complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant has placed
the order from the website of opposite party No.1. It is further
pleaded that opposite party No.1 is simply a facilitator and not
seller/ manufacturer. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4.
Opposite party No.2 was proceeded ex-parte before
learned District Forum. Opposite party No.2 did not appear
