DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 27/12/2018
CC/185/2018
Radhakrishnan P.A, - Complainant
S/o. Andi,
Poovattukunnu House, Poodanur P.O,
Mundur, Palakkad-678 592.
(Party in person).
Vs
1.Authorized Signatory,
M/s.Naptol Online Pvt.Ltd.,
S.N.85, Gundiapochampally,
Village Kompally S.O.District Renga Reddy,
Telegana 500014.
(By Adv.Manoj Ambat)
2.Smart Care Service, - Opposite Parties
Authorized Service Centre, Zen, Intex,
Mafe, M-Tech, Blackberry,Mini Complex,
Canara Street, Palakkad-678 001.
3. DTDC 3 PL & Fulfilment LTD,
Khasra No.1234/3/1, Rajokri,
New Delhi 110 038.
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya A, Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant purchased a ‘Zen’ mobile phone through the 1st opposite party on 08.09.2018. The phone was delivered at his residence and he paid Rs.2999/- as its price. But, after a while, when he tried to plug it for charging, it began to heat up. On 09.09.2018, he informed the problem to the dealer and they advised him to hand it over to the service centre of Zen company at Palakkad. He handed over the phone to 2nd Opposite party service centre on 18.09.2018, but they could not find out any fault. When the complainant informed about this to the 1st opposite party, they asked the complainant to send back the mobile to the company. He sent it through professional courier service on 25.09.2018. After 4 days, when the complainant called, they informed that the mobile was received by them and promised to send it back after repairing. But they did not return it even after 4 months. Hence this complaint is filed for getting back his phone and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and loss.
2. After admitting complaint, registered notices were issued to the opposite parties. 1st Opposite party appeared and filed version. Even after the receipt of notice, opposite parties 2 & 3 were absent and they were set ex-parte.
3. 1st Opposite party, in their version, contended that M/s. Naptol is working as a marketing platform which enables various sellers to sell their products through it. The complainant has not produced any bill/receipt to show that he had ordered the product through opposite party 1. Further he has not mentioned the ‘order number’ which is printed on the receipt/bill furnished to him at the time of delivery of the product and it a unique identity number to show all records, complaints and correspondence relating to that product. Later they filed additional version contending that complainant placed an order of ZEN smart 4G Android Mobile (M72) through the opposite parties vide ref: No.50939323 from the vender/seller named ‘Tele care Net work Pvt Ltd’ for Rs.2999/- by way of cash on delivery.
The product which was delivered to the complainant was fresh and in good condition. The product was delivered on 08.09.2019 and the 1st complaint was registered on 09/09/2019. He registered the complaints stating that he was not satisfied with the product quality. The level of satisfaction differs from person to person and the allegation made by the complainant is false. Then he registered the 2nd complaint on 16.09.2019 stating that the cell phone is having battery backup and heating issue. Customer care executive offered him to repair it through the seller and as per that he handed over the product to the service centre. They informed that the product is defect free. 1st Opposite party further contended that as per the request of the complainant, opposite party 1 had provided him with the remedy of replacement through the seller concerned and the product, after replacement had been delivered to the complainant. Thereafter no complaint was registered which shows that the product delivered to the complainant is of good quality. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Main points arising for consideration
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
parties?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs, as cost & compensation.
5. Complainant filed chief affidavit in evidence and Ext A1 to A4 were marked from his side. Since 1st opposite party did not file proof affidavit, their evidence was closed and posted for hearing. Later they filed IA 206/21 to re-open evidence and accept proof affidavit. It was allowed and proof affidavit was taken in evidence. No documents were marked from their side.
Point No.1
6. We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant. Ext A1, the Tax invoice dated 28.08.2018 for an amount of Rs.2999/- shows the purchase of the phone. Ext A2 is the Tax invoice issued by professional courier for the consignment send by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext. A3 job card dated 18.09.2018 issued by the authorized service centre ‘Smart Care Service’ shows the “fault as set heating” and A4, another job card shows the “fault as Battery weak”.
7. From these documents, it is seen that the mobile phone which was purchased on 28.08.2018 and delivered to the complainant on 08.09.2018 started showing problems on 18.09.2018 ie. within few days of its purchase itself. ( The dates were mistakenly stated in the version as 08.09.2019, 09.09.2019 & 16.09.2019) The 1st opposite party eventhough claims to be only a marketing platform for various sellers to sell their products through it, is equally liable for the defective products sold through it. They are bound to repair/replace it through the seller.
8. The 1st opposite party admits the contention of the complainant regarding the registering of complaints and subsequent events. The 1st opposite party stated in their proof affidavit in para 10 that they have replaced the product with a new one. Complainant’s documents were marked in evidence on 24.08.2021 and it was posted for hearing on 13.09.2021. After that there was no representation from the part of the complainant. There was no submission from the part of the complainant to the effect that he had received the replaced product throughout the proceedings.
9. It appears that the 1st opposite party has replaced the product after filing of this complaint. However they are liable to compensate the complainant for unnecessarily dragging him into a litigation causing mental agony and financial loss due to their deficiency in service. Since the complainant had sent the mobile to the 1st opposite party and they did not send it back in time, they are only liable to compensate the complainant and opposite parties 2 & 3 are exonerated from liability.
Points 2 & 3
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. We direct the 1st opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.7500/- ( Seven thousand five hundred only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred only) as cost of the litigation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
Order shall be complied with in 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1–Original tax invoice 848480s000750619 dated 28.08.2018. showing the
purchase of mobile phone.
Ext. A2- Original tax invoice dated 25.09.2018 issued by professional
courier.
Ext. A3- Service job sheet dated 18.09.2018 issued by Smart care service.
(original)
Ext. A4- Service job sheet dated 07.01.2019 issued by Smart care service.
(original)
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: 2500/-
