Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/15/2017

Sanam Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-The Zonal Officer, Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-15/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sanam Agrawal,

S/O-Deepak Agrawal,  

R/o-Talbhattapara, Khetrajpur ,

Ps/Po-Khetrajpur, Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                          ………….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Zonal Officer, Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd,                                                                                                                                          E-29, Ring Road, South Extension, Opp. Park, New Delhi,

South, Delhi-110049.

2. Prakash Informatics, Intex Service Centre,

At-Budharaja, Po-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

      Sambalpur, Odisha

3. Filpkart Internet Private Limited,

Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor 7^th Main, 80 feet road,

Bangalore-560034, Karnataka,India.…….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :- Self
2. For the O.P.No.1             :- Sri. A.Kumar & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2             :- None
4. For the O.P.No.3             :- Sri. A.Kumar & Associates

 

DATE OF HEARING :03.08.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :10.08.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The Complainant alleged that order No. OD 607236987879043000 dated 07.10.2016 was placed for online shopping of a mobile handset model Intex full Touch Screen Model VW73341 with O.P. No.1. The product was shipped by flipcart online with retail in voice No. FOYQ100217-00319591 dated 04.10.2016. Rs. 4999/- cash was paid on delivery of the product. When the Complainant break the seal of the packet and used the set for one month the Complainant found that the handset is not working. Thereafter rushed to O.P. No.2 for clearance of defects on 20.12.2016 against Job Sheet No. 612205071011T001 but kept the mobile simply idle and after several approach also not handed over the mobile set.

The O.P. No.2 said to replace the hand set with other model but the Complainant denied. Through email dated 26.12.2016 and several emails and lastly on 29.01.2017 when no any action was taken by O.P. No.1, the Complainant filed this complaint for Redressal.

2. The O.P. No.2 has been set ex-parte. The O.P. No.1 & 3 filed their version. The O.P. NO3 denied all the allegation and submitted that the O.P. no.3 is an online platform i.e. flipkart platform provides market place to the buyers and seller O.P. No.3 is an intermediary to facilitate sale transations between buyers and sellers. It is protected u/s 79 of the information and Technology Act, 2000.
3. The O.P. No.1 in reply submitted that complainant has suppressed material facts. The O.P. No.1 is a Company carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. The O.P. No.1 is a registered seller on the website ‘Flipkart.com’ and sells products. The claim of the Complainant is vexatious. The O.P. No.1 carry manufactures warranty. The O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer and engaged the O.P. No.1 for sale of products.

As timely the product is delivered there is no liability of the O.P. No.1. The Complainant submitted the product to the O.P. No.2 and it is the duty of manufacturer to remove the defects in the product. 10 days warranty replacement is provided by the seller which lapsed on 13.10.2016 and the product the laying with O.P. No.2. there is no deficiency in service of the O.P. No.1. The Intex Company it self has not been made a party.

Accordingly, the complainant needs to be dismissed.

4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.P. No.1. Flipkart O.P. No.3 is an online plat form who provides market place for the buyer and sellers. The intermediary is protected u/s 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. Accordingly no any order can be passed against the O.P. No.3.
5. The O.P. No.1 is also an online platform and registered seller on the website ‘Flipkart platform’. The O.P. No.2 service centre is the authorised service centre of the Company Intex. As the product is delivered to the Complainant and no any defects arose between 13.10.2016 liability cannot be fixed on the O.P. No.1.
6. It is the case of the Complainant that the defective product was surrendered with O.P. NO.2 and no repairing has been made nor the defective product has been replaced to the Complainant, the correspondences made with the manufacturing Company is totally in darkness as the O.P. No.2 is set exparte. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case the following order is made.
6698606.  

The O.P. No.1 & 3 are not liable for the defects or deficiency in service sustained by the Complainant. As an authorised service centre, the O.P. No.2 is directed to replace the defective goods of same specification within one month of this order in good condition. In case of non compliance the O.P. No.2 as authorised person of Intex Company shall be liable to pay Rs. 4999/- cost of the hand set, Rs. 3000/- compensation and litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/- along with 7% interest from 20.12.2016 till realisation.

Order pronounced10^th day of August 2022.

Supply free copies.