Smt. Babita Mondal filed a consumer case on 28 Nov 2024 against Competent authority, ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT.LTD in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/85/2023 and the judgment uploaded on 29 Nov 2024.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No.85/2023
Date of Filing: 12/09/2023
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President
2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member
For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Sandip Chakrabarti
For the O.P.3: Ld. Advocate Rajib Chatterjee
Complainant:
Smt. Babita Mondal,W/O-Sri Arindam Mondal,R/O-Vill & P.O-Junbedia,P.S &Dist-Bankura,Pin-722155
Opposite Party:
1.Competent authority,ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT.LTD.,UB City, 24,Vittal Mallya Road,KG Halli,D’souza Layout,Ashok Nagar,Bengaluru-560001,Karnataka
2.Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., Unit-1, Khewat/Khata No.373/400 Mustatil No.31, Vill-Taoru, Tehsil-Taoru, Dist. Mewat, On Bilaspur Taoru Rd., Mewat, Haryana-122 105
3.Competent Authority, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 10th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Rd., Malleshwaram (W), Bangaluru-560 055
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.19
Dated:28-11-2024
No step is taken by the Complainant.
O.P. No.3 files hazira through Advocate.
No step is taken by O.P. No.1 & 2.
The case is fixed for argument.
After hearing argument/written argument the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder on merit in absence of the Complainant in view of Section 38(3)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -
The Complainant’s case is that she purchased one Mobile handset bearing Model No. One Plus 8T-AQUAGREEN on 18/11/2020 for Rs.45,999/- on online platform from O.P. No.3. After about one year of purchase said Mobile set was functioning disorderly and the problem was brought to the notice of the Customer Care Service.
Contd……p/2
Page: 2
Centre on 25/06/2023 who advised the Complainant to visit Service Centre in Calcutta and accordingly the Complainant went to Calcutta and deposited the Mobile handset with the authorized Customer Service Centre at Mobile Heaven, 135, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700 054 but the same was returned on 29/07/2023 with the remark of fault “LCD line” and the mechanics of the Service Centre opined that such type of problem is inherent with this particular Model and the problem is beyond repairable. Thereafter the Complainant communicated with the Customer Care Centre of the Company for change of the faulty Mobile handset but the Company avoided the same. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.
O.P. No.1/Co. and O.P. No.2/Product Seller did not turn up to contest the case but added O.P. No.3 contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that they are intermediary to facilitate the transaction between the seller and the customer and as such they have no product liability in delivery of defective product.
-: Decision with reasons:-
Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds that from the Service report dated: 29/07/2023 the Mobile Handset in question is found to be defective in LCD Line which is beyond repair and service as it is an inherent defect as good as manufacturing defect and in such case Manufacturing Co. / Product Seller / E-Commerce Entity are liable to compensate the loss and damage of the Product Buyer as the case may be even if it is beyond the Warranty Period.
Ld. Advocate for contesting O.P. No.3 submits before the Commission that as they are intermediary within the meaning of Section 79 of the Information & Technology Act which exempts them from liability of intermediary in certain cases but Section 79 of I.T. Act is not applicable to the present case as it does not relate to sharing of any information, data or communication linked between the Buyer and the Intermediary/O.P. No.3. But under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 O.P. No.3 is an E-Commerce entity within the definition of Section 3 (1)(b) of the said Rule who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce and as such in terms of Section 6(4)(a) of the said Rule they have a prior Privity of Contract with the Seller offering goods or services through market place E-Commerce Entity in order to undertake or solicit such sale or offer. Thus it is clearly evident from the above mentioned provision of law that O.P. No.3 has the liability for delivery of inherent defective product by the Registered Product Seller on their website.
Contd……..p/3
Page: 3
Lengthy written version and written argument submitted on behalf of O.P. No.3 will not absolve them of product liability under the Consumer Protection Act by shifting the liability upon the Product Seller/O.P. No.2 and Product Manufacturing Co./O.P. No.1. The Complainant is therefore entitled to get the relief from O.P. No.3 apart from O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2.
Hence it is ordered…….
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.3 and Ex-Parte against O.P. No.1 & 2 but all without cost.
O.P. No. 3 is directed to pay to the Complainant the price value of the defective Mobile Handset of Rs.45,999/- or to replace the defective product by a new one of the same price or to provide satisfactory service and maintenance to the defective Mobile Handset with Litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- in all options within a month from this date in default law will take its own course.
Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.
__________________ ________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.