Haryana

Karnal

CC/531/2019

Amit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

01 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 531 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.19.08.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 01.03.2021

 

Amit son of Suraj Parkash resident of # 638 Sector-13 Extension, Karnal-132001, age-43 years.

                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. Amazon Seller Pvt. Ltd. Registered off a6t Brigade Gateway 8^th floor, 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore-560055, India through it’s Auth Person.

 

2. Bajaj Finance Ltd. Branch (Bajaj Finserve) office-sector-12, Karnal through it’s Manager/Auth Person. (Financer of the mobile in question)

 

3. One Plus India Pvt. Ltd. office address 5^th floor, Kabra Excelsior, opposite Wipro Park, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, 1^st Block –Banglore Karnataka through its Manager/Auth Person (Manufacturer of the mobile in question)

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.      

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Shri Amit sachdeva counsel for complainant.

                Shri Vishal Kundi counsel for OP no.1.

                Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva counsel for OP no.2.

                OP no.3 exparte.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile one plus 7 Pro (mirror Gray, 8GB, Ram, 256 GB storage), vide IMEI no.865166044695677 through the OP no.1 on its online site and make payment of Rs.52,999/-. The said amount was paid by complainant through finance from the OP no.2 (Bajaj Finance) through the card of his father namely Suraj Parkash, vide loan no.509ECFEK512663. The installments for the said loan were of Rs.8838/- per month and the total loan amount was to be paid in 6 installments. At the time of purchase, OP no.1 via its website showed that the said mobile is of very good quality and is loaded with latest features and also is water resistance and shall not be got damaged on contact with water such as in rain and is having one year warranty and assured that in case of any defect or shortcoming or if any damage from water occurs, the mobile will be replaced by OP no.3 free of cost or refunded by OP no.3.

2.             Further, in the month of July, 2019 complainant was going on bike and there started some drizzling and at that time complainant was having mobile set. When complainant reached his home and checked the mobile and same was working. After two days, the mobile was connected to charger, the mobile got switched off. The complainant tried to get switch on the mobile but it become dead. The complainant immediately tried to find the service centre of the company in order to get the mobile checked, but there was no service centre in Karnal. Then complainant approached to the toll free number of company. It was advised by the company to approach service centre at Delhi as there is no nearby service center of company except Delhi.

3.             Further, on the advice of the official of the company complainant approached to the service center of the company at Delhi i.e. Quoigi Services Rohini Delhi on 31.07.2019 and reported the matter to the service centre but engineer of the service centre flatly refused to provide free of cost service and demanded Rs.250/- for only inspection of mobile. Complainant requested that the mobile set is new one and is under warranty period but service center remained adamant not to eve check the unit without charging. No other way complainant paid the charges for inspection of the mobile set. After inspection, service centre demanded payment of Rs.44,000/- approximately for repair. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.3(company) and official of OP no.3 namely Mohammad Pasha communicated with complainant and assured that the problem will be resolved very soon but the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by the OP no.3 despite repeated request and lastly flatly refused to repair the mobile set in question. The OPs have failed to provide service to complainant and has sold a defective mobile and are not ready to resolve the problem or to replace the mobile. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

4.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating there in that OP no.1 does not sell or offer to sell any products and neither advertise or endorse any product or service on its website or anywhere else and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. OP no.1 is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. Therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. It is further pleaded that it is only the manufacturer and the service centre of the manufacturer who can resolve any such alleged defects in the product. The warranty is provided by the manufacturer subject to the warranty terms and conditions and OP no.1 has no role to pay in the warranty terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that no loan has been advanced by the complainant from OP no.2 as alleged. In fact, the OP no.2 has sanctioned a consumer finance loan to Mr. Suraj Parkash, vide loan no. 509ECFEK512663 and an amount of 52,999/- was disbursed and same was to be paid in 6 monthly installments of Rs.8834/- each from the period of 02.06.2019 to 02.11.2019. Therefore, the complainant is not the consumer of the OP no.2. As such the relation between Suraj Parkash and the OP is that of debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider hence for the both reasons, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint qua the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             OP no.3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 01.10.2019.

7.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of purchase order Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of loan account statement Ex.C3, copy of water proof test show on the internet Ex.C4, copy of job sheet Ex.C5 and copy of Whats App chat with Mr. Mohammad Pasha official of the company Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2019 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundaram Ex.OP1, authority letter Ex.OP2, copy of resolution Ex.OP3 and copy of condition of use Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 04.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel of OP no.2 suffered a statement that written version filed by OP no.2 be read as evidence of OP no.2.

10.           Learned counsel of complainant argued that complainant purchased a mobile one plus 7 Pro through the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.52,999/-, vide invoice dated 19.05.2019. He further argued that that at the time of purchase, OP no.1 via its website showed that the said mobile is of very good quality and is loaded with latest features and also is water resistance and shall not be got damaged on contact with water such as in rain and is having one year warranty. He further argued that in the month of July, 2019 when the said mobile contact with water/rain it becomes defective. Complainant approached the service center of the company for repair of the mobile. The official of the service centre checked the mobile set and demanded Rs.250/- for only inspection of mobile. He further argued that the complainant at that time finding no other alternative, had to pay the charges for inspection of the mobile set. After inspection, service centre demanded payment of Rs.44,000/- approximately for repairing. He further argued that the mobile set is under warranty and the problem will be resolved free of cost, but the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by the OP no.3, despite repeated request and lastly flatly refused to repair the mobile set in question and prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel of OP no.1 argued that OP no.1 is only a facilitator not a manufacturer of the product. All the products on Amazon platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by OP no.3, on terms decided by the respective sellers only. Hence there is no deficiency in service on its part.

12.           Learned counsel of OP no.2 argued that OP no.2 is a financer of the mobile set in question and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP no.2 regarding any defect in the mobile set in question.

13.            It is admitted fact that on 19.05.2019 complainant purchased a mobile one plus 7 Pro through the OP no.1 (online) and make payment of Rs.52,999/-, through OP no.2 (financer). The copy of bill is Ex.C1. As per version of the complainant, at the time of purchase, OP no.1 via its website showed that the said mobile is of very good quality and is loaded with latest features and also is water resistance. In the month of July, 2019 when the said mobile set in question was contacted with water/rain it becomes defective. Complainant contacted the service centre of the OP for repair of the mobile set but service centre of the company demanded Rs.44,000/- for repair of the mobile set. In support of his version complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of purchase order Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of loan account statement Ex.C3, copy of water proof test  Ex.C4, copy of job sheet Ex.C5 and copy of Whats App chat with Mr. Mpohammad Pasha official of the company Ex.C6. On perusal of document Ex.C4 in which it is clearly mentioned that the mobile set in question is waterproof. Further, on perusal of document Ex.C6 i.e. Whats App chat with Mr. Mpohammad Pasha Official of the company in which official of the company said that “our devices can only bare some amount of water and it splash resistance. In reply complainant said that so why you are making fool in your promo video but I say your add that one person drop the mobile in the water bowl and take it back and after that mobile is working fine.”

14.           To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, manufacturer/OP no.3 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It has been proved from the evidence lead by the complainant and documents placed on file that mobile set in question is having a manufacturing defect. During the warranty period, it was the duty of the OP no.3 either to rectify the defects from mobile set of the complainant or to replace the same, but OP failed to do so. Hence, the act of the OP no.3 amounts to deficiency in service.

15.           In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.3 being manufacturer to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the mobile set of the same make and model is not available with the OP no.3, then the OP no.3 will return the cost of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.52,999/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. Complainant is also directed to handover the old mobile set alongwith accessories to the OP no.3. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:01.03.2021                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member