Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 81.

                                                          Instituted on     : 20.02.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 07.01.2019.

Akash s/o Sh. Ved Parkash, R/o H.No. 248/1, dairy Mohalla, Rohtak.

                                                          .......................Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Amazon, 3/8, Mayor Sambandam Street, Rangaraja Puram, Kodambakkam, 3/8, Samiyae Madam, Kodambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600024 through its Manager.
2. Coolad Mobile Service Center, Shri Hari Computer Solutions, 866-22, Nr. Bajrang Bhawan Mandir, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.
3. Coolpad Mobile, A1 & A2, Tejas Apartment, Plot No.109/110, Sector-44,  Behind H.P.Petrol Pump, Seawood(West), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400706 through its Manager.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Parveen Phougat Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Raj Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2 & 3 exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Model Coolpad Note 5 Gray(32GB) IMEI No.911533256366947 for Rs.10999/- from the opposite party no.1 online on dated 22.03.2017. That from the very beginning, the above said mobile phone started creating problem  like charging issue, mic and network, touch slow work and auto and voice become very low and keyboard was not working. That complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 10.11.2017 but the official of OP No.2 after checking the phone and providing him a job sheet, kept the phone with him and still the phone is in the possession of respondent No.2. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile ser or in alternate, to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to OP No.2 received back duly served and notice issued to OP No.3 through speed post also received back served. As such opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.09.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 filed its reply and has submitted that OP No.1 act as a facilitator between buyer and seller of the goods and services via the said website which provides an online marketplace platform to sellers to sell their product online to the prospective buyers. That OP No.1 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers nor does it influence any customer in any manner.  That opposite party has no role to play in the grievances held by the complainant and the present complaint merits dismissal qua the OP No.1. 

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          As per the statement made by counsel for the complainant, the mobile handset is with the complainant. Perusal of the job sheet itself shows that mobile set was handed over to the complainant on dated 24.11.2017. Thereafter no complaint number or job sheet has been placed on record to prove that the mobile set was having any defect lateron after the repair of mobile set. As such complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs and present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

7.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

07.01.2019.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member