Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/514/2021

Tejas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon.in - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Sharma

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/514/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/08/2021
Date of Decision	:	28/03/2024

 

1. Tejas aged 11 years son of Sh.Rajneesh Chadwal aged 45 years son of Sh.Hari Singh resident of H.No.1373, Sector- 38 (West), Chandigarh through his Parent/legal guardian.

2. Rajneesh Chadwal aged 45 years son of Sh.Hari Singh resident of H.No.1373, Sector-38 (West), Chandigarh.

… Complainants

Versus

 

1. Amazon.in, Amazon India Registered Office Address: Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore, Karnataka, Through its authorized representative/Manager.

2. Appario Retail Private Ltd. Registered Office: S-405, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 Through its authorized representative/Manager.

3. Lenovo Registered Office Address: Ferns Icon, Level 2, Outer Ring Road, Doddanekundi, Mahadevpura, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, through its authorized representative/officer.

4. Lenovo Service Center- Sysnet Global Technologies (P) Limited SCO No.85/86, 4th Floor, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh, Through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	None for OP No.1.
	:	Mrs.Madhu P.Singh, Advocate for OP No.2.
	:	Sh.Gautam Goyal, Advocate proxy for Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for OP No.3.
	:	OP No.4 ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant No.1 had purchased the laptop for sum of Rs.40,990/- from OP No.2 dated 20.09.2020 (Annexure C-1). The laptop started giving problem within a year of purchase. Whenever the laptop was started, it did not display anything, a black screen was displayed. The complainant, being a student, could not attend his online studies/academic curriculum. On 08.07.2021, the complainant No.2 approached the authorized service center of the OP No.4 for the redressal of his grievance but did not resolve the issue and kept on giving false assurances that some part is required to be installed which is to come from the company Lenovo, for which order is placed, but till date nothing is done and blatantly refused to entertain the complainants. Despite the laptop/product is in warranty period, the OP No.3 has refused to provide services, which is not only deficiency in services but also has indulged in unfair trade practices. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the Manufacturer i.e., Lenovo (Manufacturer") and/or the Independent Third-Party Seller i.e., Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. would be liable for any manufacturing or other defects in the Product and not ASSPL/ Answering Respondent. ASSPL/Answering Respondent is not the seller, manufacturer or service provider and is therefore not liable for the product delivery, quality or performance. ASSPL merely provides a 'free for all marketplace to buyers who have access to internet and the same has been availed of to purchase the Product from the Independent Third-Party Seller i.e., Appario Retail Private Limited. Pursuant to the free of cost services provided by ASSPL, the Complainants are not consumers qua ASSPL/Answering Respondent as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further stated that the complainants have failed to produce job sheet/service record, substantiating the alleged defects in the product at hand. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant under paragraph 8 of the complaint that the issues faced with the product for the first time on 8.7.2021 i.e., the date on which the complainant had approached the authorized service centre. The complainant had already used the product extensively for over a period of 10 months from the date of purchase i.e., 20.09.2020. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to provide any expert report, which either confirms or corroborate that the product had manufacturing defects as provide under Section 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant approached the OP for redressal of his grievance as no record can be traced, nor has any email/telephonic record annexed by the complainant, nor available within the answering OP database. Thus, in the absence of any complaint being lodged as per terms, the present complaint alleging deficiency is not maintainable.  It is further stated that no report or any expert nor evidence has been led by the complainant to prove that laptop suffers from any defects much less an inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant admittedly used the laptop in question error free for more than 10 months and even thereafter no complaint has been lodged and laptop is with complainant. The same proves that there is no inherent defect and present complaint has no basis. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.
5.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.4 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.4 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 26.04.2022.
6.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
7.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
9.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased the product in question on 20.09.2020 after spending an amount of Rs.40,990/-. The allegation of the complainant is that the laptop worked well for 10 months, but started giving problem after that within warranty period. Alleging the defects in the laptop the present complaint has been filed for the refund of the product.
10.     After going through the documents on record it is abundantly clear regarding the purchase date, price of the product & warranty of the same. But as per the allegations of the complainant there is no job sheet/record to substantiate the alleged defects in the product. Even no expert report has been placed on record by the complainant which either confirms or corroborate that the product had manufacturing defects. No message, email, telephonic record regarding the defects in the laptop has been annexed by the complainant to prove his case. Hence, allegations levelled by the complainant are hollow and baseless. The onus is upon the complainant to prove his case.
11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
28/03/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member