Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/71/2022

Ankit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-11-05-2022

Date of final hearing-12-04-2023

 Date of Order-12-04-2023

Case No. 71/2022

Ankit Kumar

R/o New Road Phsuro, P.O.- Phusro Bazar,

 P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand 829144

Vs.

1. Amazon India Registered Office at Brigade Gateway,

8.  

Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India

2. Xiaomi Technology India Privat Limited

Builing Orchid Block E, Embassy Tech

Villlage Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Devarabisansahalli,

Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka

3. New Tech Services

GC/13, City Centre, Sec-4, Bokaro Steel City, 827004, Jharkhand

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Sr. Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s case in short is that he placed order on 12.12.2021 for purchase of Redmi 10 Prime Cell Phone from O.Ps. for Rs. 14,999/- accordingly cell phone was received but after 10 days of its receipt complainant found some defects in the product which was brought into knowledge of O.Ps. but neither they replaced the cell phone nor removed its defects and inspite of repeated requests grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. Further case is that complainant approached the O.Ps. personally, telephonically and through E-mail but his grievance has not been redressed. In this way there is unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. who failed to provide proper service to the complainant, hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. for replacement of his cell phone or to refund Rs. 14,999/- and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for various type of harassment and also to pay litigation cost.
2. O.P. No.1 Amazon India appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that he is neither the seller nor manufacturer of the concerned cell phone rather he is provider of platform to other sellers for their business. Further reply is that clearly evidencing that the product was purchased by the complainant from the independent third party  seller which was manufactured by some other company, which was having manufacturing defect hence on expiry of the period related to return window this O.P. is not liable for the fault or deficiency by other O.Ps. rather this O.P. has requested the complainant to contact the manufacturing brand for claiming warranty hence this O.P. is not liable for the claim raised in this case.
3. O.P. No.2 the Manufacturer of the cell phone has filed W.S. in which it has been mentioned that the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2 on March 12, 2022 for the first time and handset was repaired and returned to the complainant in proper working condition as it will appear from Annexure-A. Further reply is that on April 4, 2022 again complainant approached the service centre where after examination/inspection of the product no fault/issue found in it but complainant refused to collect his handset as it is apparent from Annexure-B of the reply, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further reply is that the complainant has not presented any technical evidence by way of a technical report from a reputed technical laboratory to establish his case that the product is suffering from manufacturing defect. As per warranty terms and conditions of the product concerned there was one year warranty for the handset and six months for the accessories and in case of any defect free replacement service was to be provided. Further reply is that complainant was to collect the product within 30 days from submission else the handset was to be send to warehouse  for storage but complainant has willfully not collected the handset hence this case is liable to be dismissed.
4. Point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
5. To prove its case complainant has produced photo copy Adhar Card (Annexure-1), photo copy of cashmemo dt. 13.12.2021 (Annexure-2), photo copy of service order dt. 15.03.2022 (Annexue-3), photo copy of service order dt. 12.03.2022 (Annexue-4), photo copy of legal notice dt. 04.04.2022 & 07.04.2022  (Annexue-5  to 11).
6.  The purchase of alleged handset Redmi 10 Prime is not in dispute, it is also not in dispute that on 12.03.2022 complainant submitted said cell phone before the service centre of O.P. No.2 for the complaint related to Echo in calling state and again said cell phone was submitted before the service centre of O.P. No.2 on 04.04.2022 with complain of Receiver Noise in calling state as it is apparent from the Annexure- A & B filed by the O.P. No.2. It is also apparent from Annexure-A, B, B/1 of the O.P. No.2 that product was under warranty period while defect was being pointed out. From perusal of Annexure-B/1 it appears that on inspection of the product the expert of the O.P. No.2 has mentioned the inspection result as Receiver Noise In Calling State.  In this way it is very much clear that it is admitted fact of the manufacturer that the handset was within warranty period and it was having defect in performance. Since it is admitted fact that handset was lying with O.P. No.2 hence it was upon O.P. No. 2 to get it be examined by technical experts to show that product was having no any manufacturing defect or to produce it before this Commission for perusal and inspection  but it has not been done.
7. Since handset was with the O.P. No.2 hence it cannot be expected from the complainant to produce expert’s opinion for its examination rather it was upon the O.P. No.2 to prove it but it has not been proved. The documents filed by O.P. No.2 itself showing that there was manufacturing defect in the product to which O.P. No.2 failed to remove the defect. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant has well proved his case and it has been admitted by the O.P. to the maximum extend. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed in the following manner:-

O.P. No.2 Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. is directed to replace the handset Redmi 10 Prime of the complainant with another new defect free handset of same configuration within 60 days from receipt/production of copy of this order and if it is not possible to replace the same handset then to refund Rs. 14,999/- to the complainant within above mentioned period, failing which said O.P. No.2 shall pay interest thereon @ 12% per annum from 11.05.2022 (the date of which case was filed). Further O.P. No.2 is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2000/- and litigation cost Rs. 1000/- to the complainant within above mentioned period.

 

 

J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

(B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

                                                         

                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

Member