Haryana

Ambala

CC/198/2018

Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Wholesale Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 198 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 15.06.2018

                                                          Date of decision    : 06.03.2019

 

 

KulwinderShakya S/o Om Parkash, Resident of House No.240, Top Khana Parade, AmbalaCantt. District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  AMAZON Wholesale(India) Pvt. Ltd as GargoPunit Reach Logistics Pvt Ltd, Plot No.183, 184 & 185, BommasandraJigani, Link Road, Bangalore Karnataka, India-562106

2.  Videocon Industries Pvt. Ltd. 14 K M Stone Auragabad -431105 (Maharashtra). ChitegaonPainthan Road. 

3.  Dev Raj Electronics, Shop No.31, 32 Ist Floor, Krishna Murti Market. Ambala Cantt-133001

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Complainant in person

Ms. RekhaAhlawat, counsel for OP No.1.

OP Nos. 2 & 3 already ex parte v.o.d. 06.08.2018.

 

 Order:        Smt, NeenaSandhu, President

Complainant has filed this compliant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To replace the mobile phone with new one upgraded model  or to pay Rs. 7999/- i.e. cost of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till it realization .
2. To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental  agonyand physical harassment suffered by  him.
3. To pay Rs. 3000/- as litigations charges. 

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant purchased a mobile phone of make Coolpad (Gold, 3GB RAM+32GB Memory) having IMEI No. 862003032797517, online vide order/bill no.405-2919399-9499549 dated 27.03.2018 from the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs. 7,999/-. On 23.04.2018, the said mobile set started giving problem like key problem (Back & Home Key not working), the mother board of the mobile was not working properly. On 24.04.2018, complainant approached to OP No. 3 for rectification of the problems, on checking, OP No.3 advised the complainant to deposit the mobile set with it accordingly, he deposited the same  with OP No.3  vide job sheet dated  24.04.2018. After 7 days complainant went to OP No.3 to take his mobile set then the representative of the op no.3 told him that the mobile set has not been  received back from the company and it had sent the mail to the company and awaiting the response. After waiting for some time complainant sent mails on 29.05.2018, 02.06.2018, 06.06.2018, 08.06.2018 and 09.06.2018 respectively to the OP No.3 but get no response. Thereafter, complainant again approached the OP No.3 but the representative of the OP No.3 did not return his mobile set and misbehaved with him, Hence, the present complaint.

2.       Registered  notice issued to OP Nos.2 & 3 but  none has turned  up on their behalf, accordingly they were proceeded  against ex parte vide order dated 06.08.2018. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared  through counsel and filed written  statement stating there in that ASSPL does  not sell or offers  to sell any products   and neither  does ASSPL advertise  or endorse  any product or service  on its Website  or anywhere  else and it merely provides  an online  marketplace,  where  independent third party  sellers   list  their products  for sale. Therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the Website. ASSPL is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the Website by various third party sellers, nor does ASSPL intervene or influence  any customers  in any manner. ASSPL is not involved in the sale  transaction between  the customer and seller. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the  complaint. 

3.       To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/A alongwith  documents as AnnexureC-1 and C-4 and close  his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavits as Annexure R/A and close their evidence.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for contesting parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.       From the final details for order, Annexure C-1 it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the Op No.1 through online on 27.03.2018, by paying an amount of Rs. 7999/-. From the job sheet/receipt, Annexure C-2, it is apparent that complainant handed over the impugned mobile set to the OP No.3 for its repair on 24.04.2018. The complainant has averred that the OP No.3 did not return his mobile set, which he handed over to it on 24.04.2018 for its repair and the representative of the OP No.3 misbehaved with him. This averment of the complainant has gone unrebutted as the OP No.3 preferred not to appear before this forum to contest the case. Meaning thereby OP no.3 has nothing to say in  its defence, as such we have left with no option but to accept the averment of the complainant which is duly supported his affidavit and other documents. From the record it is born out that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 27.03.2018 and handed over to the OP no.3 for its repair on 24.04.2018, which shows that the mobile set got defected within 28 days from the date of its purchase. It may be stated here that there is no document on the record, pertaining to the warranty of the mobile set. However, it is of the common knowledge that the companies, which are manufacturing mobile sets, do give warranty atleast  for 6 months. Since, the mobile set of complainant got defective within the period of 28 days from the date of its purchase. Therefore, it can easily be said that the mobile set in question got defected within the warranty period. Since, the mobile set got defected within the warranty period, therefore, it was the bounded duty of the OP No.3 to rectify the defects of the mobile free of cost within a reasonable time. These days having a mobile set  is basic necessity and the OP No.3 by not handing over the mobile set after its repair deprived of the complainant of its use. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is the fit case where cost of the said mobile set be got refunded to the complainant alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also litigation expenses. Now, the question arises for consideration is, as to whether all the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant. It may be stated here that even none has appeared on behalf of OP No.2 to say that the said mobile has not been manufactured by it and the OP No.3 is not its service centre. Since OP no.3 is the service centre of the OP no. 2, therefore, OP No.2 being  manufacturer is veraciously liable for the act and conduct of OP No.3. Thus, the OP No.2 is also liable to compensate to complainant along with OP no.3. So far as the liability on the part of the OP No.1 is concerned. From the material available in the case file, it is clear that neither any specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against it nor it has been proved. Therefore, no liability can be fastened against it and complaint filed against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP no.1 and allow the same against the OP Nos.2 & 3. The OP Nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed in following manner:

1. To pay Rs. 7,999/-(Rupees Seven thousand Nine hundred ninety nine) i.e. cost of mobile.
2. To pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation/litigation expenses. 

 

The Op No.2 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of  30 days  from the date of receipt of the  certified copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copies of this  order be supply to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost  as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :06.03.2019

(Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                        Member             President