The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, with Shri DB Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member), and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), found Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon responsible for delivering a faulty television and failing to replace it or issue a refund.
Case Background
The complainant alleged that Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., purportedly an authorized representative of Amazon for online sales of Panasonic televisions, offered a discounted price for a Panasonic 147 cm Full HD-LED TV. Relying on this offer, the complainant placed an order and paid Rs. 49,990/- on August 30, 2018. They received a tax invoice and delivery of the television. However, during installation on December 6, 2018, it was discovered that the television had internal defects and could not be installed.
Despite lodging several complaints, Cloudtail remained unresponsive regarding repair or replacement. The complainant alleged that Cloudtail delivered a faulty television and neglected to either repair it or reimburse the payment. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant proceeded to file a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ernakulam, Kerala. Neither Cloudtail nor Amazon attended the proceedings before the District Commission.
Findings of the Commission
The District Commission noted that as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is defined as someone who purchases goods or hires services in exchange for consideration. The complainant, having purchased a television and paid for it as evidenced by the tax invoice, met this definition.
Furthermore, the District Commission observed that Amazon and Cloudtail chose not to submit their written response despite receiving the notice. This omission was construed as an acceptance of the complainant’s allegations. With no rebuttal from Amazon or Cloudtail, the Commission found the complainant’s claims to be credible and upheld them without hesitation.
The evidence presented clearly showed that the television bought by the complainant was faulty. Despite this, both Amazon and Cloudtail failed to either replace the defective television or reimburse the payment. These actions were deemed as deficient service and unfair business practices.
Based on these findings, the District Commission ordered Amazon and Cloudtail to either provide a replacement for the defective television with a new unit of the same model, or refund ₹49,990/- to the complainant. In addition, they were instructed to compensate ₹15,000/- for mental distress and ₹10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676