BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MANGALORE
Dated this the 09th March 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.405/2016
(Admitted on 24.12.2016)
Jephry Rodrigues. K.
Ex. Army Official,
Angels, Prashanth Bagh,
4th cross, Alape, Padil Post,
Mangalore 575007.
Mob.9964390817,9448201474.
……… Complainant
(Complainant by: In person)
VERSUS
- Ebay Online Shopping, 14th floor, North Block, R Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (east, Mumbai 400063. Maharashtra, India, Phone.0226124811, 18002103229.
- Vishal .R. Khatwani, No.55/3, H/No.7, Kodigehalli, Main road, Balaji Layout, Sanjay Nagar Post, Bangalore 560094. Karnataka Phone 9845248039 Email Id : Vishal,Khatwani@gamail.com.
- Smart Tech, Smart Solutions for Smart Phones, Essel towers, Bunts Hostel Circle, Mangaluru 575003. Phone 0824 4252345. …. Opposite Parties
(Opposite Party No.1 and 3: Ex parte)
(Opposite Party No.2: Not pressed)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in hand set as against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
- The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant had purchased a Moto X play 32GB, mobile hand set through Ebay on line shopping on 5.10.2016 by paying Rs.13,499/ by SBI credit card. On 8.10.2016, afternoon the mobile set Moto x Play 32 GB from Blue dart by ref No.AWB 69462163293 and while opening the outer package found that the open sealed old box of Moto X Play which contained a faulty second hand mobile set along with a new turbo mobile charger put on the mobile set which shows on the screen that unfortunately the system has stopped. The complainant contacted Ebay customer service after attempting so many times on 8.10.2016 finally complainant contacted Ebay official on 10.10.2016 , Ebay officials informed the complainant to contact nearby service Centre at Mangalore. The complainant handed over the faulty defective mobile set to Opposite Party No.3 on 14.10.2016, and very next day they returned the same without any correctness where it shows again unfortunately the system has stopped. The complainant again contacted the Ebay officials since the mobile set having manufacturing warranty, should set it repair by the Opposite Party No.3. Even after one month, the mobile was not repaired and when the complainant contacted by the service Centre repair that defective mobile set, where its major part is not functioning and that part should be import from other cities. Again complainant contacted Opposite Party No.2 but no fruitful result came out. Hence the above complainant filed under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 (here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to refund the amount of mobile set i.e. of Rs.13,499/ and pay sum of Rs.25,000/ as compensation.
II. Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD, inspite of receiving notice the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor contested the case. Hence we have proceeded Ex parte as against Opposite Party. Version of Opposite Party not filed hence treated nil.
- In support of the complainant One Jephry Rodrigues K, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the document got marked as Ex C1 to C11. On behalf of the opposite parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that purchased Moto X PLAY 32 GB mobile set from the 5.10.2016 opposite parties found to be defective?
- Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite
- If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) to (iii): As per Affirmative
Point No. (iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV.POINTS No. (i) to (iii): The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C1 to C11. From the above documents it is revealed that the new hand set purchased by the complainant as per Ex.C1 is shows on the screen that unfortunately the system has stopped hence the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and was instructed to contact Opposite Party No.3 to handed over the above said handset to Opposite Party No.3 which is shown in the Ex.C4. In this case the complainant established the case by producing documents same is marked as Ex.C1 to C11 all the documents proves that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service. Further we noted that inspite of receiving version notice to the Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. From the documentary evidence placed by the complainant it is proved that hand set is defective and the same has some defect within the warranty period. Which Shows the Opposite Parties failed to maintain the quality or standard which is required to be maintained. Therefore the Opposite Parties liable to refund the entire amount instead of replacing the handset because the service rendered by the Opposite Parties not up to the standard hence refund of amount meets the ends of justice in this case. Generally, if the mobile handset has manufacturing defect is to be borne by the manufacturer. That would not mean that, the dealer is absolved from joint and several liabilities. As we know, the manufacturer not deals with the customers directly. Dealer having received the amount, undertaken free service and rectify defect during the warranty cannot escape liability towards the manufacturing defect found in the mobile handset. As we know, the contract through dealer/service provider, privity of contract is with them. To ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary by making the payment/replacement to the complainant initially and then it will be for the dealer to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer. Therefore, the dealer, service center and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the defects found in the mobile hand set in this case. We observed that the complainant paid Rs.13,499/ for mobile hand set, after open sealed old box of moto x play contained a faulty second hand mobile set which shows on the screen that unfortunately the system has stopped. Without using the phone which amounts to deficiency in service. Since complainant not pressed the complaint against Opposite Party the liability of Opposite Party No.2 is dropped. In view of the afore said reasons we hold that the Opposite Party No.1and 3 are jointly and severally refund of Rs. 13,499/ by taking back of defective handset and also pay Rs.10,000/ as compensation and pay Rs. 5,000/ as cost of the litigation expenses, payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Point. No. IV: In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally shall refund of Rs. 13,499/(Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred ninety nine only) by taking back of defective hand set and also pay Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and pay Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses, payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount with in the stipulated time, the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 6 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 9th March 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M.RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1: Jephry Rodrigues K,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Invoice by Gadgets club Bangalore.92 dated 6.10.2016 in favour of Jephry Rodrigues.
Ex.C2: Invoice by Gadgets club Bangalore.92 dated 29.8.2016 in favour of Pradeep Kumar Yadav.
Ex.C3: prepaid receipt from Vishal R. Khatwane kodige halli Main road Bangalore ref.No. AWB.No.69462163293.
Ex.C4: Service Job Sheet of Smart tech Essel tower Bunts Hostel Mangalore dated 18.10.2016.
Ex.C5: Police Station FIR report receipt of Kankanady Police station receipt No. 689802 dated 31.10.2016.
Ex.C6: Ebay guarantee claim opened letter with ref No. claim ID 2378093. Paisa pay ID. 43826166583.
Ex.C7: Ebay guarantee claim letter with ref. No. claim ID 2378093.
Ex.C8: Ebay customer help letter ref No. 89169483390.
Ex.C9: Ebay contacting a member letter ref.
Ex.C10: Letter from customer service by Jamer. H.
Ex.C11: Contacting a member of Ebay SR# 1.90147266341.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 9.3.2017 MEMBER