PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 64/2021
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,
Ramachndra Tripathy
S/o- Late Abhayananda Tripathy,
Qtr.No. 2RA59, LIC Colony
Near B.E.D. College, Motijharan, Sambalpur ...………..Complainant
Versus
- Proprietor/Manager
Flipkart Internet Private Limited,
Ozone Manay Tech Park,
#56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor,
Garvebhavipalya Hosur Road,
Bangalore-560068, Karnataka
- Proprietor/Manager
Xiaomi Tchnology India Private Limited
Building Orchid. Block-E, Embassy
Tech Village Marathahali Outer Ring Road,
Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru-560103, Karnataka
- Proprietor/Manager
Sprimon Technologies Upstair of Union Bank,
G.M. College Road, Sambalpur-768001, Odisha …………...Opp.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Self
- For the O.P. No.1 :- Sri.A.K. Sahoo, Advocate & Associates
- For the O.P. No.2 : Sri. S.P. Sahu, Advocate & Associates
- For the O.P. No.3 :- Ex-parte
Date of Filing:11.11.2021, Date of Hearing :14.03.2023 Date of Judgement : 09.05.2023
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the complainant is that on 18.8.2020 the complainant purchased a Mobile handset of Redmi note 4 through Flipkart online Invoice No. FADOAV 2100000039. When on 6.11.2020 the complainant noticed the speaker and recording system not working properly intimated MI Xiomi Company through mail from one relation Shakti Prasad Satapathy. The O.P.2 requested the complainant to contact in the point of purchase. The complainant visited the local MI Customer Service Centre, the O.P.No3 informed that the handset is a refurbish one and mother board is defective and hence handset can not be replaced. On 2.7.2021 the O.PNo.2 was informed through mail. On 16.7.2021 and O.P.No.2 informed that the handset is not refurbished. The complainant had been to O.P.No.3 several times but direct interaction could not be made conferencing O.P.No.2 & 3 due to technical problem.
Being harassed this complaint was filed.
- The O.P.No.1 in its version submitted that it is a market place as per Consumer Protection (E- Commerce) Rules, 2020. It is an intermediary as per Section 2 (1) (N) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and exempted from any liability. The O.P.No.1 cited S.G.S. India Ltd Vrs Dolphin International Ltd. case decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5759/2009 dtd.06.10.2021.
- The O.P. No.2 manufacturer submitted that the product was sold by Shri Radha Enterprises. The answering Opp.Party admitted the fact of complaint before the O.P.No.3who opined that the product is a refurbished product and advised to contact the seller of the product for replacement. The liability lies solely with the seller and not on manufacturer. The O.P.No.2 is a marketing, sale and service oriented company and running under the brand “Mi’,”Redmi” and “Xiami”. The product was sold under “Mi” brand on 18.8.2020 for Rs.12,680/- bearing IMEI No.8678u05038856567 by Seller of respondent No.1 Shri Radhe Enterprises. There is no privity of contact with O.P./No.2, there is no cause of action, the complaint suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of party. The handset was activated on 11.1.2019. The complainant effected the order and payment through O.P.No.1 and the order was delivered by the O.P.No.1. There is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P.No.2.
- The Opp.Party No.3, Service Centre gas been set ex-parte.
- Perused the documents filed by the complainant. Redmi Note 4 (Gold.64 GB) RAM MI MZ85252IN handset was purchased from Shri Radhe Enterprises through the O.P.No.1 on line platform for Rs.12,680/- vide order dated 6.11.2020, replacement mail dated 6.11.2020 by Sakti Prasad Satapathy, on 7.11.2020 the customer service of O.P.No.2 gave the reply, mail dated 23.6.2021, vide mail dated 26.6.2021 the detail of the problem have been informed by the complainant. From reply dated 02.07.2021 of O.P.No.2 it reveals that the device has been refurbished and warranty will not be covered, production of said device has been stopped since 2 years ago and advised to contact the seller point. The mail dated 10.7.2021 of the O.P.No.2 examined along with mail dated 19.8.2021 of the complainant.
The Opp.Party have not filed any documents except the version.
- From the documents filed, version of O.Ps and complaint petition it is the admitted case of both the parties that the product has been sold to the complainant by one Shri Radhe Enterprises through the Flipkart Service, O.P.1 and the O.P.No.3 is the manufacturer and O.P.No.3 is the service center of O.p.No.2. From the correspondences made between the customer service and complainant it reveals that there was defect in the handset having multiple defects like sound, hanging etc. The service provider although have not given the service report but it is admitted by the O.P.No2that the product is refurbished and liability was shifted to the dealer. In the present case seller has not been made a party. As defect in product is established and admitted by the O.P.No.2, seller is not a necessary party.
The O.P.No.1 is an online platform and as per the Information and Technology Act, 2000 exempted from any liability, like wise O.P.No.3 is the authorized service station of O.P.No.2 and provided due service in time to the complainant.
From the supra discussion defects in the product is established within the warranty period and the O.P.No.2 failed to provide proper service to the complainant as a result the complainant sought recourse before this Commission.
Accordingly, it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed against O.P.No.2 and dismissed against O.P.No.1 and 3. The O.P.No.2 is directed to replace the defective product within one month of this order, failing which the O.P.No.2 shall be liable to refund Rs.12,680/- with 9% interest P.A w.e.f. 15.08.2020 till realisation. Further the O.P. No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation n expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
Order pronounced in open court on this 9th May 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
