| Complaint Case No. CC/37/2018 | | ( Date of Filing : 01 Jun 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. Bikram Kumar Samal | | Modern English School, DNK, Malkangiri- 764045 | | Malkangiri | | Odisha |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, | | 8th Floor, Brigade Gateway, 26/1 Dr. Rajkumar Road,Bangalore, Karnataka -500055 | | 2. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar M/S- Satnam Electronics, | | M-42A, Main Market, Greater Kailash Part-1 -110048 | | New Delhi | | 3. PANASONIC Service Manager, Panasonic Service Center, Berhampur | | At/Po.Berhampur | | Ganjam | | Odisha | | 4. GM Sales, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. | | 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8 Gurugram -122002 | | Gurugram | | Haryana |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | - That the case of complainant is that being impressed upon the advertisement of O.P. No. 1, on 11.03.2018 he booked a Panasonic Make LED TV and paid Rs. 54,133/- through online system and received the same on 21.03.2018 vide invoice no. 3064 (2017-18) dated 12.03.2018 in his favour. It is alleged that as per his approach, the O.P.No.3 sent his technician on 28.03.2018 to install the alleged LED TV who found that there was no wall bracket bolts inside the package and assured the complainant to install the same within two days, but failed and for which on 04.04.2018 the complainant made a complaint on toll free number of O.P. No. 3 & 4 vide no. I040418780406 and on 07.04.2018 vide complaint no. I070418809280. It is further alleged that on 11.04.2018 the technician of O.P.No.3 came and installed the alleged TV, but during supply of electric connection, a huge cracking sound came out with linings in the LED screen, for which the technician had taken the photographs saying it as defective one and to send the photographs to the O.P.No.3. That on 11.04.2018 he contacted with all the O.Ps but did not get any result, thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the costs of alleged T.V. and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to him.
- The O.P.No.1 appeared in this case and filed their counter versions admitting the service provide to the complainant through electronic media, but have denied the allegations of complainant contending that they are only the intermediary as per the IT Act, 2000 and they are merely an online marketplace where independent third party sellers have listed their products for sale. Further they have contended that neither they are the manufacturer nor sold the alleged product nor any transaction is made between them, as such the complainant is not consumer under them, thus contending with other submissions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- O.P. No.2 entered into the case and filed counter in shape of written version stating that they are only the supplier of the alleged product but not the manufacturer nor the service center and also contended that the alleged product was safely supplied to the door step of the complainant and if any manufacture defects occurs in the alleged TV than it is the manufacturer who will comply the same, hence denying their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- O.P. No.3 & 4 appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written statement contending that on 07.04.2018 their technician found the product broken and advised the complainant to contact with O.P.No.1 for its replacement. It is also contended that prior to 04.04.2018 the complainant has not made any complaint to them and also the complainant made complaints after delay of 20 days from the date of purchase, as such they do not have any liability towards any manufacturing defects. Further they have contended that though their technician captured the photographs of alleged TV, they are not the manufacturer having no personal liability, and emphasizing provisions of Indian Evidence Act, showing their no liability, they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- Except complainant no parties to the present dispute, have filed any relevant documents related to the subject matter of the disputes, inspite of repeated opportunities provided to them keeping in view of natural justice. Hence we lost every opportunities to come to know in regard to the technical know-how of the alleged LED TV. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the case record alongwith the relevant documents available therein.
- It is an admitted fact that complainant 11.03.2018 placed an order for purchase of the alleged T.V. belongs to the Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. which was supplied to him at his door step vide their invoice no. 3064 (2017-18) dated 12.03.2018 and paid Rs. 54,133/- through online system and received the same on 21.03.2018. It is also evidentiary fact that within one month, on many occasions the complainant made complaint to the O.Ps regarding the defectiveness of the alleged T.V. Complainant filed documents to that effect also.The allegations of complainant is that though he received the alleged TV as on 21.03.2018, the technician came on 28.03.2018 to install the alleged LED TV to his place and found that there was no wall bracket bolts inside the package and assured the complainant to install the same within two days, but did not turn up, for which complainant made complaint on their toll free number which were registered vide no. I040418780406 dated 04.04.2018 and I070418809280 dated 07.04.2018 respectively.Further allegations is that on 11.04.2018 the technician of O.P.No.3 came and installed the alleged TV, but during supply of electric connection, a huge cracking sound came out with linings in the LED screen, for which the technician had taken the photographs saying it as defective one and also to send the photographs to the O.P.No.3.Complainant also filed photograph of the alleged LED TV to prove his allegations.It is also alleged that from 11.04.2018 to 25.04.02018 he contacted with all the O.Ps but did not get any result.Complainant also filed document to that effect, which was never challenged by any of O.Ps., hence the allegations of complainant remain unrebuttal. In this connection, we have come across the verdicts of the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.” Further the absence of O.Ps throughout the proceeding, makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital.
- On the other hand, though the O.Ps have challenged the versions of complainant through their written versions, but miserably failed to produce any cogent documentary evidences to make any contradictions. Hence, the oral submissions without any documentary evidence made by the O.Ps is of no value. Whereas, the O.Ps being the seller and service providers, they could have produced strong evidence to stand up their submissions. Instead of giving several opportunities to prove their submissions, except the A/R for O.P.No.1, rest O.Ps neither produced any documents nor participated in the hearing also, but only they have filed their written versions and remained silent throughout the proceeding.Hence we have no hesitations to disbelieve the versions of the complainant as alleged by him.Further, the complainant filed an affidavit sworn by one Sri Dikhit Kumar Nayak, who is to be said as the technician of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the contents of the said affidavit also corroborated with the allegations of the complainant.And the said document also never been challenged by any of the O.Ps.Hence there is a crystal picture of manufacturing defect in the alleged LED TV.
- Considering the above foregoing paras, we feel, the alleged LED TV is having manufacturing defects since its inception, which is clearly visible from the photograph filed by the complainant, and in our view, the same needs to be replaced by the manufacturer, as it is under warranty and alleged defects occurred during it’s installation. But during hearing, except complainant no other contestant O.Ps are present, as such the demand of costs of alleged LED TV from the O.Ps made by the complainant was accepted. Further due to not provide of better service and response by the O.Ps, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, which compel the complainant to seek redress before the Forum by incurring some expenses. Hence this order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed in part. The O.Ps No. 3 & 4 being the representatives of manufacturing company i.e. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. are herewith directed to refund the costs of alleged LED T.V. i.e. Rs. 54,133/- and also to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which, the costs of alleged T.V shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of sale i.e. from 12.03.2018 till payment. Further the complainant is directed to return the alleged T.V. to the O.Ps at the time of complying the order by them.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6th day of April, 2019.
Issue free copy to the parties concerned.
| |
