Haryana

Karnal

CC/132/2024

Sumesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Kumar Vaid

27 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 132 of 2024

                                                          Date of instt.11.03.2024

                                                          Date of Decision 27.03.2024

 

Sumesh Kumar son of Shri Madan Lal, H.No.563, Karan Vihar, Tehsil and District Karnal, Aadhar No.8413 8332 7889.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Amazon India, 2^nd Floor, Safina Towers, Opposite J.P. Techno Park, No.3, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore 560052 through its M.D.

2.     Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy.No.113, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7^th Mile, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068, Karnataka.

3.     Xiaomi Service Centre, Office At SCO 25, Ist Floor, Mugal Canal Market Road, Near Nanital Bank, Karna, Haryana, PIN 132001

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh…….…President   

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…………..Member

 

 Present: None for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

 

                Today the complaint is fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility. Neither arguments has been advanced nor none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. Position remained the same on the adjourned date.

2.                    The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased Xiaomi (Redmi) android mobile Note 8 PRO (Green) on 05.03.2022 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.17,990/- with one year guaranty/warranty, which was manufactured by OP no.2. After some days, the said mobile started giving problem. After two months, the complainant contacted OP No.3 in this regard who told that this is a general problem and OP No.3 suggested to update the software. On the last date of warranty dated 04.03.2023, the complainant was stunned and shocked to hear from the authorized service centre executive that mobile in question was sold second hand by OP No.1 and OP No.2 showed the proof of secondary sale of above said mobile on his computer screen. Complainant approached OP No.1 through amazon app and explain all the issues and expected to resolve the issue. OP no.1 suggested to contact the OPs No.2 & 3 but all the OPs despite repeated requests did not resolve the issue and flatly refused to resolve the same. Hence, the present complaint.

3.             As per Section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the admissibility of the complaint is ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed. The present complaint has been filed on 11.03.2024, already sixteen days have been elapsed but neither today nor on the last date of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. It seems that the complainant is no more interested in pursuing the present complaint. Further adjournment for the same purpose would not be justified. On perusal of the complaint as well as documents placed on file, we do not find any evidence from which it can be ascertained that the alleged defect occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period. The complainant has purchased the mobile in question on 05.03.2022 with the warranty of one year and after expiry of the warranty period, he has filed the present complaint just to harass the OPs and to extract the money from the OPs and also to waste the precious time of this Commission. Furthermore, the complainant in his complaint has mentioned his address of Karnal, but he has not placed on file any proof with regard to the said address of Karnal, rather in the tax invoice, the billing address of the complainant is of Rohtak and has purchased the mobile in question from Delhi. Thus, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

4.             Hence, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any merits in the present complaint and same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Complainant be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced
Dated: 27.03.2024                           

  President,       

             District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

              (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Suman Singh)        

                  Member                          Member