BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH
CONSUMER CASE NO. 259 OF 2019
In the matter of:
ABHAY RAJPUT …Complainant
Versus
AMAZON SELLLER PVT.LTD. & ANR. …Opposite Parties/
Respondents
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPARIO RETAIL PVT. LTD.
(OP2) HEREINAFTER REFFERED TO AS ANSWERING RESPONDENT
1. That it is submitted that the Answering Respondent is a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at S-405, Greater Kailash Part – II, New Delhi - 110048. The
answering respondent is carrying on the business of sale of goods
as a retailer and is a registered seller on Amazon India Marketplace
i.e., www.amazon.in (“Website”).
2. That the Answering Respondent denies each and every statement
or contention which is inconsistent with, or contradictory to,
whatever is stated in this written statement, and no statement, or
contention, not specifically denied by the Answering Respondent
shall be deemed to have been admitted, merely for want of a
specific traverse.
3. That the instant complaint has been filed by the Complainant
raising certain allegations against the Answering Respondent citing
reference to specific provisions which have been defined and dealt
with under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”).
Accordingly, it has become imperative for the Answering
Respondent to deal with such provisions at this stage, to purposely
record its objections on the admission of the complaint against the
Answering Respondent.
4. That admittedly, the subject matter of present dispute is restricted
to receiving alleged wrong product i.e., Dell Inspiron 135370 13.3
inch (“Product”) instead of Dell Inspiron 3576 15.6 inch, which the
Complainant had ordered from the Website of Respondent No. 1
and sold by Answering Respondent on 16.07.2019. In this regard it
is submitted that the Answering Respondent is only a reseller of
different products on the Website. Neither the Answering
Respondent provides any warranty / representation on the Product
nor is it into providing after sales services on products sold on the
Website. Even otherwise, order of the Product was Fulfilled by
Amazon (FBA) and received by the Answering Respondent in a
packed from Respondent No. 1 which was duly delivered to the
Complainant. Additionally, it is pertinent to mention that the
Answering Respondent submits that the Complainant had never
contacted to the Answering Respondent with respect of the issues
in the Product. The Answering Respondent is accordingly bad for
misjoinder of parties and has been unnecessarily and wrongly been
arrayed as a party to the presents without any cause of action. The
Product, although, ordered from the Answering Respondent, was
neither packed nor delivered by it and therefore, no liability can be
fastened on Answering Respondent with respect to the Product.
5. That therefore, in the absence of any transaction between the
Answering Respondent and Complainant and/or any fee charged
for any alleged services much less deficient, the instant complaint
is not maintainable and bad in law, which deserves nothing less
than outright dismissal qua the Answering Respondent.
6. That admittedly, the Product has been sold and delivered to the
Complainant in a sealed box condition. Also, order of the Product
was Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA) and received by the Complainant in
a packed from Respondent No. 1 which was duly delivered to the
Complainant. In this regard it is submitted that the Answering
Respondent is only a reseller of different products on the Website.
That accordingly, no liability can be fastened on the Answering
Respondent, who is only a reseller, for any deficiency of service and
any issue in the Product which is neither manufactured, packed,
checked, tested, etc. by the Answering Respondent. Hence, in view
of the aforesaid, this Hon’ble Forum may graciously be pleased to
dismiss the instant complaint qua the Answering Respondent on
this count as well.
7. That it is respectfully submitted that the Complainant has resorted
to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi in the complaint. The
Complainant has suppressed many vital facts which go to the root
of this case and has needlessly impleaded the Answering
Respondent to the presents.
8. That the Complainant has dejectedly failed to establish any
reasonable and cogent grounds basing which the present
complaint could be admitted against the Answering Respondent. So
much so, not even a single averment has been made much less any
specific relief has been sought or prayed for against the Answering
Respondent in the complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable
to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Humble OP2
Through Counsels:
[Prince Pawaiya]
For GNP Legal
Date:
Place:
