22 Sep 2023 11:30 AM GMT
Recently, the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., the seller, liable for delivering a damaged Panasonic HD Smart LED TV to the Complainant. The District Commission cleared the manufacturer’s...
Recently, the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., the seller, liable for delivering a damaged Panasonic HD Smart LED TV to the Complainant. The District Commission cleared the manufacturer’s liability after assessing that the damage was caused during the delivery of the TV, which was the responsibility of the seller.
Sri Shiv Nair (“Complainant”) ordered a Panasonic HD Smart LED TV (“TV”) from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (“Seller”) on the website of Amazon Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd. (“Amazon”). The TV cost Rs. 59,000/- and was manufactured by M/s Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (“manufacturer”). The Complainant submitted that he was able to unpack the TV after 10 days of passing the return period permitted for the item, due to some construction-related issues at his place. On unpacking, the Complaint found that the TV was badly damaged and it was not in its original company packaging. The Panasonic Engineer also refused to install the TV as it was completely damaged. On raising the issue with the seller, despite several follow-ups, no resolution was offered by the seller. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint against Amazon, the manufacturer and the seller of the TV.
Amazon contended that it neither sold the TV nor offered to sell any products. It only acted as a third-party online marketplace and did not get involved in the sale transaction between the seller and the Complainant. On the other hand, the seller contended that the Complainant is not entitled to the return of the TV as it was unpacked almost 20 days after the sale receipt, wherein the return window was only for 10 days as per the sale agreement.
Observations by the Commission:
Relying on the letter given by the Panasonic Service Provider, the District Commission observed that the TV was indeed damaged at the time of delivery. Moreover, the damage could not be attributed to the manufacturer as gross negligence was established during the handling and transporting of the TV. Thus, the seller was held responsible for a deficiency in service in delivering the TV safely. It was held that the seller, as a vendor of the TV, had the responsibility of safely delivering the TV at the door of the Complainant. As the TV was bought in 2016, the District Commission felt that replacing it with the same model would not be as appropriate as providing a refund. Thus, the seller was directed to refund Rs. 58,990/- to the Complainant with 9% interest from the date of legal notice sent to the seller. An additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation for mental agony caused to the Complainant, coupled with Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs.
Case: Sri Shiv Nair vs. Amazon Development Centre and others
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 2384/2017
Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Kiran N Murthy
Advocate for the Opposite Party(s): Sri Mohan Malge
Click HereTo Read/Download Order