PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 67 /2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Abhisek Majumdar,

S/O- Malaya Kumar Majumdar,

At-Qr. No. B 106, AnandVihar Colony, Near DAV Public School, Block No.14,

Po-JagrutiVihar, Burla, Dist-Sambalpur-768020, Odisha.                   

At present SubhashreeVihar, Ainthapali, Sambalpur.                ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Retailez Private Limited,
   GMR, Airport City, Survey No. 99/1, Mamidipally Village,

Shamshabad, Hyderabad, Telengana-500108.

2. Retailez Private Limited.

Metro Tower 8^th Floor, 1 HO CHI MINH Sarani Kolkata,

Kolkata-700071, West Bengal.

3. MaaAllai Sales and Service LCT

At-Gopalmal, Infront of Sai Temple, PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768108, Odisha.

4. Manager, Amazon Retail Indian Pvt. Ltd.

CIN No. 252609DL201FTC31864, Ground Floor, EROS Plaza,

EROS Corporate centre, Neheru Place,

New Delhi-110019, Delhi (South)

5. Manager, Hindustan Unilever Limited,

Unilever House, B, D Sawant Marg, Chakala,

Andheri East, Mumbai-400099                                         ...…....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. A.Nayak & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1 & 2         :- Ex-parte
3. For the O.P.No. 3                          :-Sri. P.R. Gocchayat
4. For the O.P.No.4               :- Sri. A.Agrawal & Associates.
5. For the O.P.No.5               :- Sri. S.R. Mahapatra & Associates

Date of Filing:21.02.2024,  Date of Hearing :25.06.2024,  Date of Judgement :02.09.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that mother of the Complainant purchased a HUL Pureit Vital Mineral RO+MP6 stage, 7L wall mount water purifier with filter power technology(Black)/for Rs. 13,999/- from O.P.No.1, manufactured by O.P.No.5 and on dated 01.07.2023 marketed by O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.3 is that service provider. After purchase the product not worked. Parents of the Complainant due to health problem cannot move. Due to defective product the purifier could not be used.

After several messages also non of the O.Ps could solve the problem nor returned the same. The O.P.No.3 also not provided service repairing the product. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P.No.1 & 2 online market place have been set ex-parte.
3. The O.P.No.3 service provider submitted that the installation was made by O.P.No.3. The purifier has been attended many times but it was working properly. O.P.No.3 has provided after sale services.
4. The O.P.No.4 M/S Amazon seller sevices Pvt. Ltd. submitted that O.P.No.5 is the manufacturer and O.P.No.3 is the service provider. The O.P.No.4 has been wrongly impleaded as a party. O.P.No.1 & 2 are the seller in market place who sold the product. The market place ASSPL is the proper party. ASSPL, O.P.No.4 is the owner of market place. The product was delivered on 04.07.2023. Complaint was made on 11.10.2023. The Complainant was informed to contact O.P.No.3 &5. The O.P.No.4 as an intermediary in E-commerce market place exempted from liability u/s 79 of the Information Technology Act.
5. The O.P.No.5 submitted that the O.P.No.5 is the manufacturer of the product. O.P. No.3 is the service provider. O.P.No.1 & 2 are the seller and marketing personnel respectively. The product has been installed by O.P.No.3. The claim of the Complainant is Vexatious. The product was purchased on 01.07.2023. The request of Complaint does not fall under manufacturing defect. Complainant has made bald allegations. The Complaint is liable to dismissed.
6. Perused the documents filed by the parties. From the invoice dated 01.07.2023 it reveals that the O.P.No.1 vide order No. 407-2913588-1425147 dated 01.07.2023 received Rs. 13,999/- from the mother of the Complainant. The O.P.No.2 is the marketing personnel. The product was transacted through the E-commerce entity O.P.No.4.

Perused the complaint dated 17.09.2023, 8.09.2023,21.09.2023,19.11.2023,19.12.2023 and 25.12.2023 of the Complainant. As per statement of the O.P.No.3the product has been attended by the service provider. The O.P. No.3 failed to submit the work order attended maintained. The service provider simply submitted that no defect were found but failed to submit the job sheet. It proves that after several request also no any warranty service have been provided by O.P.No.3, it amounts to deficiency in service. After sale of product it is the duty of manufacturer to provide warranty service through service provider. When no any job sheet has been filed how it can be ascertained that the product is having manufacturing defect or not. The manufacturer, O.P.No.5 also failed to submit any documents to prove that after sale warranty service has been provided to the Complainant. As the product is defective, deficiency lies on O.P.No.3 & 5 who are jointly and severally liable.

7. The Complaint has been filed by a son, on behalf of his mother Renu Majumdar and filing of complaint by a son under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not barred. As a family member complaint has been filed due to health condition of Renu Majumdar, who is bed-ridden.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint, case is allowed on contest against O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.5 and dismissed against O.P. No.1,2 & 4. The O.P.No.1 & 2 are sellers and O.P.No.4 is the e-commerce platform. The No.5 is directed to replace the defective water purifier within one month of this order with same specification product. Incase of non replacement the O.P.No.5 shall be liable to refund Rs. 13,999/- with 7 % interest P.A. w.e.f. 01.07.2023 till realization. The O.P.No.3 & 5 are jointly liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- each.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2^nd day of Sept. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.