Failure To Replace Defective Television, Provide Refund, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Amazon and Cloudtail Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri DB Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon liable for delivering a defective television and failing to replace it or provide a refund. Brief Facts: The Complainant alleged that Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. ("Cloudtail"), claiming to be an authorized representative of Amazon. for the online business of Panasonic televisions, assured a discount on the sale of a Panasonic 147 cm Full HD-LED TV. Based on this assurance, the Complainant placed an order and paid Rs. 49,990/- on August 30, 2018, receiving a tax invoice and delivery of the television. However, upon installation on December 6, 2018, it was discovered that the television had internal issues and could not be installed. Despite multiple complaints, Cloudtail did not respond with any communication regarding repair or replacement. The Complainant asserted that Cloudtail delivered a defective television and failed to either repair or refund the payment. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala ("District Commission"). Cloudtail and Amazon did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission observed that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is defined as a person who buys goods or hires services for consideration. The Complainant, having purchased a television and made the payment as evidenced by the tax invoice, qualified as a consumer. The District Commission further noted that Amazon and Cloudtail consciously failed to file their written version despite receiving the notice. This failure amounted to an admission of the allegations made by the Complainant. The Complainant's case stood unchallenged, and the District Commission found no reason to disbelieve the Complainant's claims. The evidence indicated that the television purchased by the Complainant was defective. Both Amazon and Cloudtail failed to replace the defective television or refund the payment. These acts constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. In light of the aforementioned observations, the District Commission directed Amazon and Cloudtail to replace the defective television with a new, defect-free unit of the same model. Alternatively, they were directed to refund ₹ 49,990/- to the Complainant. Additionally, they were directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for legal costs. Case Title: Aneesh T.U. vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Case No.: C.C No. 510/2018 Date of Order: 21st June 2022 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Failure To Replace Defective Television, Provide Refund, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Amazon and Cloudtail Liable

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Failure To Replace Defective Television, Provide Refund, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Amazon and Cloudtail Liable

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers