DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 171 of 27/04/2016
Decided on: 26/09/2018
Mohd. Ilyas aged 46 years son of Mohd. Iqbal Resident of B-3/551, Arya Samaj Chowk, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.
.…...Complainant
Versus
1. Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited, registered office at Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 21/1, Dr. Raj Kumar, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore-560055 Karnataka, India “through its Managing Director”.
2. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.1, Khewat/ Khata No.373/400, Mustatil No.31, Village Taoru, Tehsil Taoru, District Mewat, On Bilaspur-Taoru Road, Mewat-122105, Haryana, India.
3. Y. U. Televentures Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Atul Bansal Adv. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. B. S. Chehal Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Opposite parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT. NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
1. The complainant placed an online order with OP No.1 on 12/3/2015 for the purchase of one Mobile Phone company Y.U. Yureka (Moondust Grey) and the price of the same was Rs.12,500/- and after discount and deduction, the total amount of mobile phone was Rs.8999/-. The said mobile phone having IMEI No.911401502967209 was delivered to the complainant on 13/03/2015. It is averred that after six months of the said purchase, the mobile phone started creating problem relating to ‘charging issue'. The complainant lodged a complaint with Op No.3 and OP No.3 replied that it will sort out the matter as early as possible. Thereafter, the complainant made various complaints to OP No.3 telephonically as well as through Emails but OP No.3 kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. On 1/3/2016 the complainant also got served a legal notice to OPs but to no use. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs. As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period. Ops were bound to rectify the same which may failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. On notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. Whereas OPs No.2 & 3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In the reply filed by OP No.1 the only plea taken by OP No.1 is that the complainant placed an order for the product on the website of OP No.1 from OP No.2. It is submitted that OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service or adoption of Unfair trade practice on its part. Its role is limited to that of a facilitator and not the seller/ manufacturer, hence it is not liable for any action or inaction of OPs No.2 & 3. After denying all the allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of retail/ tax invoice, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 copies of emails, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 postal receipt, Ex.C-8 & Ex.C-9 copies of emails and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered in the evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh. Rahul Sundaram, Sr. Corporate Counsel (Litigation) along with documents Ex.OP-1 authority letter, Ex.Op-2 copy of board resolution, Ex.Op-3 conditions of use and close the evidence of OP No.1.
6. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and for OP No.1 and also gone through the evidence placed on record.
7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP No.2 on 12/3/2015 for a sum of Rs.8999/-. Ex.C-2 is the email exchanges between the complainant and OP No.3. In these Emails the problem in the disputed mobile phone is mentioned as ‘Heating issues’ and ‘charging issue’. In Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 i.e. Email dt.23/12/2015 OP No.3 has demanded certain details from the complainant and on 25/12/2015, the complainant furnished the required details to OP No.3. In Ex.C-9, OP No.3 has apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and as a service gesture, it offered to the complainant one month extended warranty from original warranty expiration date.
8. During the course of arguments, the counsel for OP No.1 argued that it is neither seller nor manufacturer and hence it can’t be held liable for any deficiency in service on its part. In the present case, OP No.1 provides an online market place where independent third party seller can list their products for sale. OP No.2 is seller and OP No.3 is the manufacturer. As a matter of fact all the parties earn profit and hence they all are jointly and severally liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same but they failed to rectify the problem and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, We partly allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to rectify the defect in the mobile phone free of cost and if that is not possible to replace the same with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty after receiving the defective mobile phone along with accessories from the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment along with a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
Dated: 26/09/2018
Kanwaljeet Singh Neelam Gupta Member Member
