Haryana

Kurukshetra

89/2017

Ishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon - Opp.Party(s)

Vaibhav Sharma

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.89/17.

Date of instt. 25.4.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 9.2.18.

 

Ishan son of Tribhuwan Sharma, resident of House No.329/7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. M/s Amazon Development Centre India Private Limited, Brigade Gateway, 8^th 9^th and 10^th Floor, 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Banglore, Karnataka through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s Motorola, Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory.
3. Service Centre, New Mass Communication, Shop No.152,1^st Floor, KWC, Mughal Canal Market, Karnal, through its Manager/Authorized signatory. 
4. Moto Care Service Centre 1^st Floor, Shop No.572, (Opposite HDFC Bank_ Kathmandi Road, Hissar, through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member    

 Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

       

Present:         Sh.Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

 Ops No.2 to 4 ex parte.

 Sh. Mohit Goel, Adv. for OP No.3.

ORDER       

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ishan against M/s Amazon Development Centre and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant had ordered a New Mobile make Moto G Plus bearing IMEI No.354115074694694 through website portal of OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,999/-. The above said hand set was dispatched on 15.6.2016 along with invoice No.KA-BLRS-167791461-113864 and the complainant paid a sum of Es.14,999/- in cash. At the time of selling the hand set, the OP No.1 assured that the hand set is very good quality and also gave a guarantee of one year. After few days of purchase, the hand set started giving problem i.e. power on/off, finger sensor, Bluetooth, touch screen etc. and the complainant approached Op No.1, who told to approach OP No.3 being service center of the company and the complainant accordingly approached OP NO.3 on 3.8.2016 and the OP No.3 told to deposit the hand set and issued work order dated 34.8.2016 and thereafter the complainant approached OP NO.3 in evening and he told that it will take time for 40-45 days for repair of hand set. The complainant after a gap of 40 days asked OP No.3 and who told that the hand set is repaired but the complainant was astonished that nothing concrete was repaired and the major problems in the hand set still existed. The complainant approached the Ops many a times to replace the hand set but neither the Ops replace the hand set nor returned the cost of the hand set. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to return the cost of the hand set, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.             OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the answering OP neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale; that the complainant has placed an order for the product from the website of OP No.1 and as such the answering OP is not liable any compensation to the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

4.            Ops No.2 to 4 have failed to come present and as such, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 6.6.2017.    

5.            The complainant has tendered in to evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, photo stat copy of dispatch order of hand set as Ex.C1 and photo stat copy of retail-invoice/cash memorandum as Ex.C2, photo stat copy of warranty card as Ex.C3 and photo stat copy service note as Ex.C4 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rahul Sunderam, Senior Corporate Counsel as Ex.RW1/A and copy of resolution as Ex.R1 and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            From the cash memo Ex.C2, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 15.6.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.14,999/-. From the perusal service note it is clear that the hand set became defective within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.2, who is manufacture of the unit in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.2 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :9.2.2018                          (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)                (Viraj Pahil)

  Member                                   Member