Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/54

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manish Kumar Dhingra, Adv.

26 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 54 of 22.07.2021

                                  Date of decision             :  26.05.2023

Harpreet Singh @ Happy son of Sh. Inderjit Singh resident of  house no. 3514/2    Grandhi Bagh, Rupnagar Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                                                ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1 .Amazon.in, head office at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road,  Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka (India) through its managing director.

 

2.

3.  

4. Sparkle, Samsung Mobile Service, S.C.O. 3027-28, Sector 22-D Chandigarh   through its   Manager

5. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.. registered office 6th floor, DLF Centre  Sansad   Marg, New Delhi through its managing director.

....Opposite Parties

 

                                  Complaint under Section 35 of the                                            Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

 

                SH. KULJIT SINGH PRESIDENT

                   SMT. RANVIR KAUR ,MEMBER

              

 

ARGUED BY

 

For complainant:  Sh. MK Dhingra Advocate

For OP1              : Sh Hemant chaudhary Advocate

For OP2              : Sh APS Rana Advocate

For OP3              : Exparte

For OP 4             : None

For OP5              : Sh. Arvind Kumar Rishi Advocate

                  

      ORDER

 

       PER  SMT. RANVIR KAUR MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the complainant is permanent resident of  above said address whereas the opposite parties are working for the above mentioned addresses .The caomplainant in his complaint has made averments as under:-

 

1.      That the opposite party no.1 is electronic service provider to the public at  large in whole of the world, th opposite partyno. 2 is product seller, whereas oppOsite party no.3&4 is service provider for the product purchased by the complainint and opposite party no.5 is the manufacturer of the product and they sells goods and providing services for the goods in collaboration with each other to the general public in whole of  India.
2.  Complainant purchased android mobile handset and he
   visited the website of opposite party no.1 and approaching  the website of opposite party no.1, webpage shows the advertisement of the Samsung Galaxy Mobile M31 (Space Black, 6 GB Rain, 64 GB Storage) describing the specifications, one year warranty, EMI options, offers. in respect of the said product. and complainant had paid Rs. 15,999 /- for the same and the said mobile was delivered to complainant through opposite party No.1 along with bearing invoice number IN-DEL4-575710 dated 04-02-2021 issued by opposite party no.2 in which warranty about the product was not mentioned which is against the interest of consumer .
3.       That in the month July 2021 mobile itself caused many troubles and it was not functioned properly as it could not be switched on and not showing display  and Said  mobile purchased by complainant shows one or more defects. On 19-07-2021 complainant visited the office of opposite party no.3 and the official available in the office show his inability to remove the defect and did not accept the said mobile and directed to the complainant to approach opposite party no.4.
4.  That on 20-07-2021 complainant approached to opposite party no.4 and disclosed about the defects in the said mobile to the official who attend the complainant. The official of the opposite party no.4 took the photographs of the said mobile and lodged the complaint of the complainant before opposite party no.5. That official of the opposite parts no.4 told to the complainant they can remove the defect of  the said mobile. on chargeable basis .That opposite party no.4 remove the defect on chargeable basis by replacing the display of the mobile with nre one and they have charge Rs. 4600/- from the applicant/complainant. Lastly,the complainant , respectfully ,praye that the complainant of the complainant may kindly be allowed against the opposite parties in the following terms:-

1. The opposite parties may kindly he directed to pay cost of said mobile assured i.e. Rs 15,999/- along with interest at the rate of 12% PA or replace the said defective mobile with new one
2.  Rs. 50000/- towards compensation for deficiency in services, harassment, mental agony, botheration and litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. And exemplary punitive damages in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties as deemed fit and proper OR any other  relief, which is made out from the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the complainant and against the

2. Upon notice the respondent no. 1 to 5 submitted written reply .All the Ops reffered to catena of judgements of various Hon’ble courts in support of their averments made in the written reply. After going through the written reply of  all the OPs 1 to 5and the judgements of various Hon’ble courts the bench is of the view that only the OP no.5 is the necessary party answerable to the issue involve in the complaint.
3. That OP No5 in their reply made averments as under :-

1. No cause of  action arose to complainant to file the present complaint  against the answering respondent. The complainant has mishandled and negligently used the handset due to which the handset got damaged. The handset in question was submitted with OP No.4 on 20-07-2021 and on checking the handset it was found that handset is out of warranty as it has been physically damaged, DISPLAY SCREEN of the handset has internal yellow color traces which was the result of internal damage caused to the display due to external force or pressure due to mishandling. The physical damage is a warranty void condition and repair is to he done chargeable basis. The complainant has sought replacement of mobile or refund of price,which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty, the replacement or refund is only permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty is such of nature that it can not be cured or repaired . Since the product is out of warranty ,hence complainant is not entitled ofr any relief from the Hon’ble commission as he has concealed the true and material facts. Lastly prayed that the present cpmplaint may kindly be dismissed against answering respondent i.e No.5 whit cost and any other relief as this Hon’ble commission may deem fit and proper in the fatcs and circumstances of the present case.

4. That bench has heared in detail from both the parties and has gone through the record placed before it is observed that  the handset of the complainant has functioned properly from 04.02.2021 to july 2021. It is further observe that the OP has not denied the service of the product on chargeable basis being out of warranty. There is no manufacturing defect rather the complainant has mishandled and negligently used the handset due to which the handset got damaged. Complainant has neither alleged any specifica irrepairable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence in the said regard. The handset in question was submitted with OP No.4 on 02-07-2021 and on checking the handset it was found that handset is out of warranty. The physical damage is a warranty void condition and repair is to be done on chargeable basis, the replacement or refud is only permissible where defect develop during the period of warranty is of such nature that it can not be cured or repaired. The pleadings of the parties, eviudence led by them and the arguments addressed by them, lead to following conclusions. The terms and conditions of warranty are governed by the Warranty card Echibit R-3, fact and applicable for both the parties, The complainant has not proved on record any specific irreaparable manufacturing

 

defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product. Further as per one of the condition physical damage and/or electrical damage caused by physical impact is not covered under the valid warranty. According to the conditions incorporated in the warranty card the case of the Complainant in not covered under warranty. It is pertinent to observe here that the handset of the complainant has  functioned properly from 04.02.2021 to July 2021.It is further pertinent to observe that the OP has not denied the services and is still ready and willing to render services(Repair the handset) to the complainant on chargeable basis as stated above.

 

5. In the light of aforesaid discussion the Complaint of the Complainant is hereby  dismissed being devoid of merits .However in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

6.The certified copies of this order be supplies to the parties forth with, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to Record Room.

Announced

Dated :26.05.2023