STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                            FA 192 of 2017

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 79 of 2016, DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

Between :

Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

O/o Ozone Manay Tech Park,

 #56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor,

Garvebhavipalya,

Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560068,

Karntaka State

Rep. by its authorized signatory

Annes Garg, S/o R.K. Garg                ….      Appellant/opposite party

And

Dr.Ahmed AQ Irfani,

 S/o Mohd. Aman Ali Saberi,

Aged about 49 years, 22-8-482, Purani Haveli,

Hajja Galli, Near City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad – 500 002.

Ph. No.9866303598. …….                             Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                            :         M/s. G. Madhusudhan Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent                         :         Party-in-person

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                                   Tuesday, the Twelfth Day of December

                                           Two Thousand Seventeen            

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal  filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party   praying this Commission  to set aside the  impugned order dated 22/03/2017   made in CC 79 of 2016   on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM- III, Hyderabad.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3). The case of the complainant, in brief,  is that he purchased a Battery Charger T12921, online through Flipkart website on 07-01-2016 which  was delivered on 11-01-2016. When he plugged the Battery Charger in to the power point and connected the cable to his mobile phone 10 minutes later, the battery charger caused burning of the wires and rendered his mobile dead. The  opposite party offered to replace the product but he demanded for  refund of the amount paid by him. Due to the faulty charger, his mobile phone Nokia Lumia 730 was damaged beyond repair causing much monetary loss to him. Upon a further complaint, the Flipkart offered to refund the sum paid for the  charger but declined to compensate him for the damage caused to his mobile. The Opposite Party denied any defect in the charger and suggested that the mobile could have been damaged because of the surge in power at the Complainant’s end. The charger is applicable for range of variation of 100 volts to 240 volts. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation towards damage for his mobile phone, refund of the sum of Rs.259/-  towards charger, costs incurred for repair, Rs.100/- towards diagnosis of fault @ Nokia service centre and Rs.50,000/- towards damages sustained due to stress, travelling and disturbances,  along with interest.

4). The Opposite Party opposed the above complaint by way of written version  contending that they are acting as an intermediary between buyers and sellers enabling them to purchase and sell various products displayed on their  website. It is in no way either a manufacturer or a reseller of any product displayed on its website. The products displayed on its website are sold by various resellers registered on their website and in no way they have  any control over the sale and purchase of any goods and products. It is protected by the provisions of Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 which provides that Intermediaries are not to be liable in certain cases. Further since the consideration is paid to the seller who is in the instant case Technofirst Solutions private Limited , this Opposite Party cannot be said to be a service provider or seller of goods and it was wrongly impleaded. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and hence the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer.  The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party. Mobile device was damaged due to short circuit which happens due to excessive current flow in the power source and therefore it  is evident that there was no fault in the charger. This Opposite Party as a gesture of goodwill offered to help the Complainant in getting replacement or refund of the product from the concerned seller but the Complainant refused to accept the same and is demanding a new handset from them. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his  case, the complainant  filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A10.  The Opposite Party filed his Evidence Affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B4. Both parties have filed written arguments in support of their respective averments.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record,   allowed the complaint  in part and directed the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and costs of  Rs.3,000/- within 30 days.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party  preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8).      The parties on both sides   have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.

9)       The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No. 1 :

There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant purchased a Battery Charger by way of online through the appellant/opposite party Flipkart website by paying a sum of Rs.259/-,  Flipkart is an e-commerce website, wherein they provide services for  purchase of goods from various sellers listed on their website.

11)     The contention of the respondent/complainant is that due to faulty Battery charger, his Nokia Lumia 730 mobile was damaged when it was charging. The appellant/opposite Party contended that the respondent/ complainant purchased the product from Technofirst Solutions, there is no privity of contract between the respondent/complainant and the appellant/Opposite Party, further, as per the Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, they are not liable for the same.  Undeniably appellant/Opposite Party is the platform to the respondent/Complainant to purchase the charger from the Technofirst Solutions through the appellant/opposite party for consideration. Hence the District Forum opined that there is a relationship as that of a  Consumer and the Service Provider between the respondent/complainant and the appellant/Opposite Party and hence the respondent/complainant is a consumer and the dispute is consumer dispute. We do not see  any contradictory view on this opinion since the appellant/ opposite party is providing service to the purchaser and seller for consideration. Further, the opinion of the District Forum  that it is for the appellant/opposite party to implead Technofirst Solutions as necessary party, if required, in  the proceedings is also noteworthy because the appellant/opposite party being  the service provider  if there is any defect or deficiency in the product  it has to rectify or replace  the same, as the case may be,  as intermediary from the seller.

12)     The contention of the appellant/opposite party that the respondent/ complainant had failed to file the invoice copy before Forum which is the basic document for his claim, charger not deposited and not filed any expert report to support his claim cannot be accepted since it has already agreed to replace the charger with new one but the respondent/complainant disagreed for the same in order to contest the matter before the District Forum, but, the appellant/opposite party did not take any steps to produce the same before the District Forum.   The further contention that the mobile of the respondent/complainant was damaged due to Board problem-short circuit  due to excessive current flow in the power source but not because of  faulty charger supplied by it was also not proved with cogent evidence relating to  fluctuations of the electricity department and,  if that was the  reason, there should be so many electrical items should also be damaged, like, frizz , T.V. fans etc. in his house. But there were  no such happenings. As contended by the counsel for the respondent/complainant,  Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is  not applicable to the facts of the case since the present case pertains to              e-commerce  transaction through online whereas the said Act with regard to transmission of information. The appellant/opposite party did not place before us   that there is any contract in between the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant in purchasing the charger as alleged.  There is no dispute  that the charger was purchased through the appellant/opposite party from the Technofirst Solutions and   Ex.A-1 service Job Sheet reveals that the Nokia 730 Model of the respondent/complainant got damaged due to short circuit and there is no evidence on record to show  that there are fluctuations of current and due to that reason the other electrical items  were also got  damaged along with the mobile phone of the respondent/complainant in question and in those circumstances it cannot be said that the mobile of the respondent/complainant got damaged as a consequence of excess flow of current as alleged by the  appellant/opposite party. However, the respondent/complainant has to hand over the damaged charger and the damaged mobile phone in question to the appellant/ opposite party in lieu of the amount ordered by the District Forum.

13)     After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that there are no infirmities or irregularities in the impugned order and  there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.  However, the respondent/complainant has  to hand over the alleged faulty  Battery charger and the Nokia mobile phone in question to the appellant/opposite party.

14).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 22.03.2017   in CC 79 of 2016 passed by the District Forum-III, Hyderabad subject to handing over of the alleged faulty damaged   charger and damaged Nokia Mobile in question to the appellant/opposite party.  There shall be no order as to costs. Time for  compliance four weeks.  The appellant/opposite party is at liberty to get back the amount, which was paid by it to the respondent/complainant,  from the seller/ manufacturer.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                                     Dated :  12.12.2017.