Durlava Patel filed a consumer case on 14 Nov 2022 against 1. Flipkart internet Pvt.Ltd (Flipkart Headquarters India) in the Sambalpur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/7/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Nov 2022.
Orissa
Sambalpur
CC/7/2022
Durlava Patel - Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Flipkart internet Pvt.Ltd (Flipkart Headquarters India) - Opp.Party(s)
14 Nov 2022
ORDER
PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
For the Complainant :- Sri. P.Mahapatra, Advocate & Associates.
For the O.P.No. 1, 2 &3 :- Exparte
For the O.P. No.4 :- Self
Date of Filing:07.03.2021,Date of Hearing :14.09.2022, Date of Judgement : 14.11.2022
Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.
The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant ordered a mobile hand set to i.e. Micromax IN 1 (Purple, 64 GB) to OP No. 1 and 2 supplied the same hand set to the Complainant as per cash on delivery in the home address of the Complainant vide Mobile Model Name IN 1 vide IMEI No. 359863750001586 and 2nd IMEI No. 359863750001594 and received Rs. 9999/- and the OP supplied the receipt that includes GST Tax invoice No. FAHBQB220008213 to the Complainant with warranty of one year in mobile hand set and six month warranty over accessories and it’s warranty begins from 11.07.2021. On 27.12.2021 the mobile set was not functioned properly i.e. back side cover bulged out and battery was not working properly, which is still cover under warranty. The Complainant visited the OP No. 4 and the OP No. 4 had received the mobile set with a hand written paper as job sheets and told the Complainant to wait for 6 to 7 days for resolving the issue of i.e. 06.01.2022. The Complainant had filed a online grievance at consumer help line bearing grievance no. 3224771 for the above issue on dtd. 16.01.2022 due to unnecessary delay in repairing. The Complainant had received an email in which mentioned that the issue bearing request Id- 294325 has resolved on dtd 29.01.2022. When the Complainant enquired to OP No. 4 they denied. The Complainant have frequently come to the service centre. The Complainant has missed online classes during this time due to imposed corona pandemic restrictions. So it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of O.Ps.
The O.P No. 1, 2 and 3 are set exparte. The Written Statement and submission that of the O.P No. 4 is that the O.P No. 4 issued job sheets but the Company could not provide the parts as a result, the mobile set was sent to the Company.
From the above it is found that the O.P No. 1 and 2 are the platform. So they have no deficiency in service. The O.P No. 4 issued job sheets but the Company could not provide the parts as a result, the mobile set was sent to the Company. So the O.P No. 4 has also no deficiency in service. In the other hand the Company i.e. the O.P No. 3 has not taken any steps to solve the problem. Hence there deficiency in service of the O.P. No.3 and unfair trade practice. Accordingly it is ordered:
ORDER
The case is allowed on contest. The O.P No. 3 is directed to return the price of mobile set i.e. Rs. 9999/- to the Complainant, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.
Order pronounced in the open Court today on 14th day of Nov, 2022.
Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.