Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/79

Cheezi Preet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asus India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:79 dated 26.02.2020.                                                Date of decision: 23.02.2023.

 

Cheezi Preet Kaur aged 25 years daughter of Shri Kulbir Singh, resident of House No.2-A, Sarabha Nagar, Malhar Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Asus India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: 402, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053, Maharashtra, through its Director/M.D.
2. Asus Service Center, F-1, Info Solutions, 259/1, Ground Floor, Batra Palace, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Officer Incharge.
3. PayTM E-commerce Pvt. Ltd., Head Office: B-121, Sector 5, Noida-201301, through its Director/M.D.
4. Neel Enterprises, Deshna Nagar, Near Shiv Kripa Colony, Chatri Talao Road, Amravati-444606, through its Proprietor/Partner.                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Kulbir Singh, authorized representative of                                           complainant in person.

For OP1 and OP4          :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Inderjit Singh Sibia, Advocate.  

For OP3                          :         Sh. Sachin Srivastva, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Tersely put, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one laptop make Asus X509F J-E J502T (X509F) S/No.KBNOCX05K453337 online from opposite party No.3 vide invoice No.3434 dated 23.12.2019 for Rs.49,490/- and on receipt of laptop along with the bill/invoice, the invoice was generated by opposite party No.4. The laptop was having warranty of one year. The complainant stated that during the warranty period, the laptop started giving problem as there is a dead pixel/spot on the scr5een of the laptop  since the purchase of the laptop which shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the laptop. The complainant lodged complaint regarding the said defect with the opposite parties and also reported the matter to PayTM helpdesk on 27.12.2019 but no satisfactory reply was given. Thereafter, she again reported the complaint to the PayTM Support where she was asked to verify the damaged screen from Asus Service Centre. On which she visited the Asus Service Centre and connected the call to PayTM support and the Asus Service Centre staff explained the issue to the PayTM support and the complainant was asked to wait for few days. The complainant further stated that she received a message from PayTM support to revisit Asus Service Center and get the details of damages screen written on a job sheet and share with them. Again she revisited Asus Service Centre and got a job sheet prepared and shared with PayTM Support who informed the complainant that their vendor i.e. opposite party No,.4 could not process the refund or return of the product and the complainant should contact Asus Service Centre to get it repaired and when the complainant visited Asus Service Center, they told her that there is a latent/manufacturing defect in the laptop which is beyond the scope of repairs. When the complainant requested them to replace the defective laptop with new one, they asked her to talk with opposite party No.3 and 4 in this regard. The opposite parties are withdrawing and taking off their hands from their liability which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered physical and mental pain, agony, harassment and humiliation for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate her. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has sought direction to the opposite parties to replace the defective laptop with new one and to compensate her to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing her mental pain, harassment, agony etc.     

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party No.1 and 4 through registered post on 12.11.2020 but none turned up for opposite party No.1 and 4 and as such, opposite party No.1 and 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.02.2021.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement by stating that it has service centre at 259/1, Ground Floor, Batra Palace, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and submitted that that the complainant purchase laptop make Asus X509F J-E J502 (X509) online from opposite party No.3 on 23.12.2019. The complainant visited their service centre with one Asus laptop having a damaged screen and she wanted to change the laptop by demanding new laptop with same make and model on which their technician from team told her that they are not liable to change the laptop but offered to repair the same as it was under warranty period but the complainant has not asked for the repair work from their service centre. Opposite party No.2 even told the complainant that it is the policy of PayTM and not the service centre that any product purchased from PayTM E-commerce Pvt. Ltd. can be replaced free of cost within the fixed period as per their policy and after which the complainant left the service centre with the laptop. Opposite party No.2 further alleged that after few days the complainant visited their service centre again and requested to prepare a job sheet about the condition of the laptop as per guidance of PayTM Support Staff. The staff member prepared a job sheet about the defect in the laptop as per guidelines given to them and then sealed the laptop and returned it to be complainant.

                   On merits, the opposite parties alleged that no direct service of transaction of purchase from it was availed by the complainant. The alleged problem dead pixel/spot on screen is occurred handling or using the laptop with proper care and caution. The complainant did not lodge any complaint with opposite party No.2 before the day she visited the service centre on 30.12.2019. Moreover, opposite party No.2 had no policy of connecting call with the PayTM as per their business rules. However, opposite party No.2 admitted the factum of preparing job sheet about the defect in the laptop and handing over the same to complainant after sealing it. Opposite party No.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In a separate written statement, opposite party No.3 took preliminary objection by assailing the complaint that the complainant has no locus standi against it, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties, maintainability of the complaint etc. Opposite party No.3 alleged that ‘Paytm E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd.’ is a company along with mobile application named ‘Paytm Mall & Bazaar’ which is an online market places and provides only a platform for different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers subject to terms and conditions as enumerated on their website and it acts only as an intermediary between seller and buyer as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Mr. Ankur Gupta is authorized vide authority letter dated 19.11.2019 to represent opposite party No.3 in legal proceedings. Opposite party No.3 further alleged that it does not engage in manufacture, procurement, supply, listing, pricing and/or direct sale of the goods on its website www.paytmmall.com which provides only online marketplace platform which facilities the merchant/sellers like opposite party No.4 after executing a Market Place Agreement to display/list their goods which are purchased by the buyers after acknowledging/accepting the terms and conditions displayed in the website and at the price determined and displayed by the merchant/seller. The complainant purchased the Asus X509 laptop for Rs.49.490/- on 23.12.2019 using the online market place platform of opposite party No.3 who after some time alleged that the said laptop developed some issues and there is manufacturing defect  in the same as there is a blind spot on the screen of the laptop. Opposite party No.3 alleged that the complainant allegedly raised grievance pertaining to the blind spot on the screen with it who directed her to visit opposite party No.2 i.e. Service centre of Asus but the service centre did not help the complainant and instead informed her to contact opposite party No.3 and 4 for the grievance. Opposite party No.3 denied having any deficiency in service on its part.

                   On merits, opposite party No.3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In support of claim of the complainant, her authorized representative Sh. Kulbir Singh, tendered affidavit of the complainant as Ex. C1 in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C2 is the copy of notice dated 28.01.2022, Ex. C3 is the copy of online order, Ex. C4 is the copy of invoice dated 23.12.2019, Ex. C5 is the copy of photograph if the laptop, Ex. C6 is the copy of Asus Product Service Form, Ex. C7 to Ex. C9 are the copies of photographs of detail of product and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit  Ex. RA2 of Ms. Sheetal Tiwari, Authorized Officer/Manager of M/s. F1 Info Solutions, Noida and closed the evidence. The counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit Ex. RC of Sh. Ankur Gupta, authorized representative of opposite party No.3 along with documents i.e. Ex. OPW-1/1 is the copy of authority letter dated 19.11.2019, Ex. OPW-1/2 is the copy of polices of opposite party No.3, Ex. OPW-1/3 is the copy of notification/guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Ex. OPW-1/4 is the copy of Market Place Agreement and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written replies along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

8.                Section 2(16) of the Consumer Protection Act defines as under:-

                   16. “e-commerce” means buying or selling of goods or services                           including digital products over digital or electronic network.

So in order to protect the interest and rights of the consumer and to prevent unfair trade practice in regard with “e-commerce” business. The detailed guidelines known as Consumer Protection (ecommerce) Rules 2020 has been framed. Under these rules, it has been mandated that every e-commerce entity was provided all the information related to its business operation on its platform and shall also establish “Consumer Grievance Redressal Mechanism” which shall redress the consumer complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the compliant. It has been further provided that violation of the provisions of these rules will entail an action as per the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                The complainant, a purchaser of laptop in question, on the very first day observed a dead pixel/spot on the display screen. Immediately on 27.12.2019, she contacted the helpdesk of opposite party No.3 who with initial reluctance suggested the complainant to contact opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. Opposite party No.2 after examination, offered repair. Perusal of Asus Product Service Form Ex. C6 confirms that there was a minor dot on the LED. Thereafter, the matter was brought into notice of the remaining opposite parties and requested them to refund or replace the product. This product was having one year warranty. The complainant repeatedly approached the opposite parties for replacement or refund of the price of the laptop. Even written notice Ex. C2 was also sent on 28.01.2022 but nothing favourable came from the opposite parties. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1, 3 and 4  and they have adopted unfair trade practice. However, opposite party No.2 has done its duty by issuing job sheet to the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency on its part.

10.              During the course of arguments, the representative of the complainant Kulbir Singh has relinquished the claim with regard to the replacement and refund of the price of the laptop and thus, prayed for compensation only for the deficiency in service rendered by opposite party No.1, 3 and 4. In the view of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if opposite party No.1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that opposite party No.1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Cheezipreet Vs Asus India Pvt. Ltd.                                       CC/20/79

Present:       Sh. Kulbir Singh, authorized representative of complainant in                            person.

                   OP1 and OP4 exparte.

                   Sh. Inderjti Singh Sibia, Advocate for OP2.

                   Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate for OP3.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that opposite party No.1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.