DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 441
Instituted on: 15.10.2018
Decided on: 08.03.2021
Minkel Bansal son of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal, resident of H.No.542, Street No.3, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Ground Floor, Eros Corporate Centre, Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110019 through its M.D.
2. Green Mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 & 39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli, Haskote Taluka, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore (Karnataka) through its Managing Director 560084.
3. Unicron Info Solution Private Limited, 1st Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala through its Managing Director 147001.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: :Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.
For the OP No.1 :Shri PS Sidhu, Adv.
For the OP No.2 :Exparte.
For the OP No.3 :Shri Mukesh Singh,
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
1. Shri Minkel Bansal, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant got booked one iphone 7 (Gold 32 GB) with the OP number 1 on 09.12.2017 and the order was successfully placed vide order ID No. 405-6572183-8606761 with the OP and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.39,999/- to the OP number 2. The OPs gave one year warranty on the said mobile set if any defect arose due to manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. Further case of the complainant is that the OPs dispatched the said mobile set to the complainant along with invoice and the same was received by the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2018, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile in question was giving problems of hanging, touch, over heating and camera, as such, the complainant approached the OP number 3 and lodged complaint on 17.8.2018, who told the complainant to come after ten days. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP number 3 and requested them to handover the mobile set, but the OP number 3 handed over the mobile set by replacing display and camera and gave assurance to the complainant that in future the said mobile set will not give any problem. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the mobile set in question again suffered the problem in month of September, 2018 and the Op number 3 issued the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.29,500/-, but the OP cannot charge anything from the complainant during the warranty period. As such, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount of the mobile set in question, but nothing was done by the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.39,999/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has not bought any goods from the OP, that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as no there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP and that there is no occasion for the complainant to approach this Forum. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant has paid any amount to the OP or that the OP never gave any warranty/guarantee for the product. It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and any deficiency on the part of the OP has been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
3. Record shows that the OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. In reply filed by OP number 3, all the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied. It is stated further that the said iphone 7 in question is water resistant and not water proof and the basic difference between resistant is that water resistant phone can able resist the penetration of water upto certain degree and depth (upto 1 meter) but not entirely water proof whereas water proof means completely impervious to water penetration and can withstand deep water immersion for long. The complainant has breached the water policy of the mobile set, as such the complaint is required to be dismissed with special costs.
5. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased one iphone 7 (Gold 32 GB) from the OPs on 09.12.2017 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.39,999/- to the OP number 2. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the OPs gave one year warranty on the said mobile but the mobile set in question suffered problems of hanging, touch, over heating and camera, as such, the complainant approached the OP number 3 and lodged complaint on 17.8.2018, who told the complainant to come after ten days. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that thereafter the complainant visited the OP number 3 and requested them to handover the mobile set, but the OP number 3 handed over the mobile set by replacing display and camera and gave assurance to the complainant that in future the said mobile set will not give any problem. Further the learned counsel has argued that thereafter the mobile set in question again suffered the problem in month of September, 2018 and the Op number 3 issued the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.29,500/-, but the OP cannot charge anything from the complainant during the warranty period. As such, the complainant has requested to refund the cost of the mobile.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has argued that the complainant has not paid any amount to the OP or that the OP never gave any warranty/guarantee for the product. It is further argued that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and any deficiency on the part of the OP has been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the OP number 3 has argued that the said iphone 7 in question is water resistant and not water proof and the basic difference between resistant is that water resistant phone can able resist the penetration of water upto certain degree and depth (upto 1 meter) but not entirely water proof whereas water proof means completely impervious to water penetration and can withstand deep water immersion for long. The complainant has breached the water policy of the mobile set, as such the complaint is required to be dismissed.
9. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice which shows that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.39,999/-, Ex.C-3 is invoice, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the copies of delivery report. On the other hand the OP number 1 has tendered Ex.OPW1/1 affidavit of Shri Rakesh Bakshi and has deposed as per the written version, Ex.OPW1/3 is the conditions of use, 10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one. It is further directed that the complainant shall hand over the old mobile set along with all the accessories to the OPs at the time of replacement of the mobile set with new one. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. This order be complied with by the opposite party within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 8, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
