DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                            -oo0oo-

C.C.CASE NO. 114/2018

Ravindra Pratap Singh, IAS, Director, Agricultural Marketing

And Member Secretary, Odisha State Agricultural Marketing

Board, Plot No.1800 (P), Baramunda, PO- Khandagiri, Near

Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Baramudna, Bhubaneswar – 751030

Odisha and resident of Qr. No.4R-10, Gopabandhu Nagar,

Unit- 8, Opposite OUAT Guest House, Odisha, Bhubaneswar- 751012 

….       Complainant             

-Vrs.-

1. Dell  India Pvt. Ltd., #12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A,  Challaghatta

Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

2. Flip Kart, Niladri Vihar Road, Niladri  Vihar, Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751013

3. Sales Services Consultant, Dell Technologies, TVS Electronics,

Plot No.359,  1^st Floor, (In front of Bapu Opticals),  Saheed Nagar,

Bhubaneswar.

….       Opp. Parties 

For the complainant                :           Mr.M.R.Mohanty & Associates  (Adv.)

For the OP.No.1                     :           Mr. B.S.Mishra & Associates (Adv.)

For the OP No. 2                    :           Mr. S.K. Mohanty & Associates (Adv.)

For the OP.No.3                     :           Exparte           

DATE OF FILING                :           02/05/2018

DATE OF ORDER                :           16/11/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.         This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.         The complainant’s case in brief is that,  he had purchased one Dell Laptop from  Tech Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. through Flip kart. He paid Rs.56,990/- as consideration for the said laptop. Within two months from the date of its purchase,  the mother board of the laptop started mal-functioning. He took it to the service centre (OP.3). OP.3 repaired the defect found in the laptop and retained the laptop for ten days. Further within three months thereafter, the DVD writer of the laptop did not function well. He again took it to the OP.3 who made the necessary repair and returned it to the complainant. Time & again the said laptop evinced several  problems. He noticed that the laptop in question was a defective one. He wrote to OPs 1 & 2 to replace the defective laptop. But neither the OP.1 nor OP.2 agreed to the proposal of the complainant. Hence this complaint.     

3.         On the other hand,  the  OP.3 was set exparte. OP.1    filed written version contending  therein that,  the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.  It is pleaded by the OP.1 that, the laptop so purchased by the complainant,  if had any technical problems, it can be removed by the authorized service centre. OP.1 also suggested to the complainant that if there is any such problem in the laptop, it  can be removed if it is taken to the branch office of the company. But the OP.1 categorically denied to replace the laptop.  Since the company is willing to remove the defects of the laptop through its service centre, there is no scope for replacement of the product.  As such   the complaint is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.   

            Similarly, the OP.2 filed written version contending therein that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP.2. It is pleaded by the OP.2 that,  Flipkart Platform is  electronic marketplace model E- commerce platform which acts an intermediary to facilitate the  sale transactions between independent thirty party seller and independent end customers.  Flip kart incurs no liability for any act of the seller. The E-commerce platform or its operating entity cannot be held liable. It is further pleaded by OP.2 that,  it has no role in providing warranty for the product sold by an independent seller through Flip kart platform. Since  the complaint is devoid of merit,  it is liable to be dismissed with cost against the OP.2.   

4          Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a dell Laptop from Tech Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. through Flip kart. But unfortunately, the seller has not been made as a party in this complaint. The laptop had developed certain technical problems which were remedied by OP.3.  Still then the laptop had certain technical problem. The complainant concluded that the said laptop was a defective product and he wanted replacement thereof. But the laptop in question was a defective product, has not been proved before this Commission in proper way. When there is allegation before this Commission that the product is defective, it must be sent to the appropriate laboratory for testing. No such test has been done in this case. So it is pre-mature to hold that the laptop was a defective one.   Be that as it may the laptop had certain technical problems.  The OP.1 is willing to remove the defects through its service centre.  The demand for replacement of the product / laptop in question is not well founded. The complainant has relied upon the warranty for replacement of the laptop. But no such warranty paper has been produced before this Commission to show that within the specified period, if the product is found to be defective, it will be replaced by the manufacturer.  So considering the facts & circumstances of the case in entirety, this Commission finds that there is no reason for replacement of the said laptop. At best, the defects existing in the laptop may be removed by the authorized service centre of OP.1.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  dismissed on contest against the OP.2 and  allowed  exparte against the OP.3 and  on contest against the OP.1.  The OP.1 is  directed  to  instruct OP.3 to remove  the defects as pointed out by the complainant in the laptop in question  free of cost within three months from the date of communication of this order. In addition to that, the OP.1   is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-   (Rupees ten thousand) only  towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a  sum of Rs.3000/-  (Rupees  three  thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 3   within the stipulated period of  three months  from the date of communication of this order,   failing which the complainant will be  at liberty to execute the order  against the OPs 1 & 3    in accordance with law.

The order is pronounced on this day the  16^th November,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.

                                                                                                (K.C.RATH)  

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

          President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                                                

(S.Tripathy)                                                                                        

Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                 

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno