Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/475/2017

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Jasjit Singh Saini Adv.

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	475 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	16.06.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	31.10.2017

 

 

 

 

Parveen Kumar s/o Sh.Gurdev Singh, R/o H.No.40/3, Khuda Ali Sher, UT, Chandigarh

Office Address: Front Office, Near Post Office, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.    

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Maleshwaram (W), Banglore 560055, through its authorised representative.

2]  Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber Green, DLF Phase-3, U-6 Road, Cyber City, Sector 26, Gurugram, India, through its authorised representative.

3]  Tech Point, #4, 1^st Floor, Babaji Square, Bohra Layout, Off Bannerghata Road, Gottigere, Bangalore through its authorised representative

4]  Sant Rameshwari Enter., SCO No.26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its authorised representative. 

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :     Sh.Jasjit Singh Saini, Adv. for complainant

                Sh.Nitin Thatai, Adv. for OP No.1

     OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

Defence of OP No.2 struck off.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one Mobile Phone Moto G3 XT1550 16 GB (OP No.2) amounting to Rs.11,999/- through the website of OP No.1 and the same was delivered by OP No.3   (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that after using the product for a month or two, it developed few technical snags i.e. network signals were lost most of the times, as a result no calls could be made or received.  It is also averred that the software of the product also developed some technical issue and the mobile stopped working totally within 5 months of its purchase.  Then, the mobile was taken to Opposite Party No.4 (authorised service centre) but it refused to entertain the complaint saying that the product is out of warranty.  The complainant sent e-mails to Opposite Parties No.3 but it advised to contact Opposite Party No.4 (Ann.C-2 & C-3). However, when Opposite Party NO.2 was contacted, it told that the product has been purchased from an unauthorized seller and thus no warranty will be given and the complainant will have to pay for the service.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 had filed reply stating that the complainant has not bought any goods from ASSPL (Amazon Seller Service Private Limited) nor has the complainant paid any amount/consideration to ASSPL for the purchased product and that the goods have been bought by the complainant from the independent third party seller selling its product on the website operated by answering Opposite Party. The booking of the mobile phone in question by the complainant on the website of Opposite Party NO.1 is admitted as a matter of record. It is stated that the instant complaint pertains to manufacturing defects and the same can only be rectified either by the manufacturer or the seller and no liability can be fastened on the answering Opposite Party whose role is limited as facilitator.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 

         The Opposite Party No.2 initially put in appearance through Sh.Manwar Singh, authorised agent, but later on neither filed reply/evidence despite several opportunities nor appeared, hence the defence of Opposite Party No.2 was struck off vide order dated 24.10.2017.

         The Opposite Parties NO.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.7.2017. 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The allegations set out in the present complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 goes unrebutted and unchallenged since the concerned OPs were duly served through regd. notices and in response, they chose themselves to be declared as exparte.  In such like situation, an adverse inference is taken that the OPs No.3 & 4 are either admitting the claim of the complainant or have nothing to contradict the allegation so set out in the complaint.

 

6]       The complainant in the present complaint cogently established the purchase of the mobile handset in question from Opposite Party NO.2 through Opposite Party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.11,999/- (Ann.C-1).  The perusal of the copies of the e-mails dated 25.1.2017 & 31.1.2017 (Ann.C-2 & C-3) delivered by the complainant at the official website of the OPs reveals that he duly registered his complaint qua the defective mobile and also requested vide e-mail for the rectification of the defects or in lieu thereof for the replacement of the set in question.  The emails sent when failed to generate any response from the OPs, were followed by the legal notice dated 22.2.2017 sent by the complainant.  It is an evident fact that despite being duly apprised about the grouse of the complainant, the Opposite Parties showed their reluctance to deal the matter and also chose not to appear before the Forum to explain their position. 

 

7]       In the given scenario, the allegation of the complainant that his request for the repair of the mobile handset in question was wrongly declined stating it to be out of warranty period is accepted as true. The date of the purchase bill of the mobile handset in question as well as the perusal of e-mails dated 25.1.2017 & 31.1.2017 (Ann.C-2 & C-3) respectively shows that the mobile set in question was well within warranty period when it developed snag. Neither the Opposite Parties rectified the set in question nor they replaced the same as called for or complained. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large.

 

8]       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against OPs. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against OPs and they are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.11,999/-, to the complainant being the invoice price of the handset;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service;
3. To pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of filing complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at sub-para (i) & (iii) above.

9]       The complainant shall return the mobile handset, if not deposited with OPs, after receipt of the above awarded amount from the OPs, against receipt. 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31^st October, 2017                 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER