Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/510/2017

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/510/2017
Date of Institution	:	13/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2018

 

                                       

                                               

 

Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o LIG 3143, Sec.70, Mohali, Tehsil and District Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

V e r s u s

 

1.     Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, C/o Green Mobiles, No.1/B, Indo Space Logistics Park, Puduvoyar, Durauballur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar, Tamil Nadu – 601 206, through its Manager.

 

2.     Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana – 122001, through its Proprietor.

 

3.     Motorola and Lenovo Service Centre, SCO 26, Sector 20, Chandigarh, through its Auth. Signatory.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                  Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

                  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset Moto g4 plus (hereinafter referred to as Mobile Handset) manufactured by Op No.2 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Bill dated 27.09.2016 for Rs.15,039/-, carrying a warranty of one year. During the subsistence of warranty, during the month of April, 2017, the said mobile handset started causing problems of hanging, battery heating while on charging, disappearance of SIM network, fluctuation and heating up while recording video. Accordingly, on 21.04.2017, it was taken to Opposite Party No.3, who after updating of Software returned the same to the Complainant. However, after a week when again the same problems started, the Complainant took the mobile handset to Opposite Party No.3, whose Technician/ Engineer after inspection, told the Complainant that the mobile handset was having manufacturing defect. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the mobile or to pay the cost of the same as they had sold the mobile to the Complainant with manufacturing defect. Hence, the present Complaint.
2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         The Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, pleaded that the Complainant had purchased the product from a third party seller i.e. M/s Green Mobiles on 27.09.2017 and the same has not been made a party in the Complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 was not involved in the contract of sale between the Complainant and the Seller. It has been urged that the Complainant placed an order for the product on 27.09.2017 and the same was delivered to him. The Complainant never approached the Customer Service Team of Opposite Party No.1 within the return window period regarding the issues with the product. Further, the instant case pertains to manufacturing defects and the same can only be rectified either by the manufacturer or the Seller and no liability can be fastened on the Opposite Party No.1 whose role is limited to the facilitator. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Opposite Party No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.         We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         Admittedly, the Complainant has bought the mobile handset in question from the Seller (M/s Green Mobiles) on the website of the Opposite Party No.1 vide Order dated 27.09.2017.  The Complainant has not disputed the fact that he did not approach the Opposite Party No.1 or its Customer Service Team regarding the alleged defects in the mobile handset within the return window. In the present matter, the manufacturing defects pointed out could only be rectified either by the manufacturer or the Seller, therefore, we feel that no liability can be fastened on the Opposite Party No.1 and the present lis qua it deserves its dismissal.

 

7.         In the present circumstances, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, and the same is partly allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are, jointly & severally, directed to:-

 

[i]     Refund Rs.15,039/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its purchase, till realization.

[ii]    Pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[iii]    Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation;

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [iii].
10.         The Complainant shall return the defective Mobile handset in question, if in his possession, to the Opposite Party No.3, after the compliance of the order.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06.04.2018

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”