Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1971

NARESH K. SAHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

EBAY INDIA (P) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1971 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 05.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.509/2016 by District Commission, Bhopal-1)

 

NARESH KUMAR SAHU,

S/O SHRI PREMNARAYAN SAHU,

R/O 73, SHANTI NAGAR,

BEHIND CHHOLA DAL MILL,

BHOPAL.                                                                                                                   … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. EBAY INDIA PVT.LTD.

    THROUGH MANAGER,

    R/O R-TECH PARK, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,

    GOREGAON (EAST) MUMBAI-(MS)-400 063

 

2. Y.U.TELEVENTURE PVT.LTD.

    THROUGH MANAGER,

    21/14, BLOCK-A, PHASE-2, NARAINA,

    INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110 028

 

3. M/S KALRA MOBILE & COMPUTER SERVICES,

    THROUGH MANAGER,

    PLOT NO.105, FIRST FLOOR,

    NEW SINDHI COLONY, BERASIA ROAD,

    BHOPAL-462 018.                                                                                               … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Appellant is present in person.

           None for the respondents.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 21.02.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short ‘District

-2-

Commission’) in C.C.No.509/2016, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by him.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a Micromax Yureka Plus-Alabastar white mobile handset with the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 (opposite party no.1) after paying a sum of Rs.7,419/-  which was delivered to him on 03.03.2016. The said mobile handset was having 6 months’ brand warranty. It is alleged that soon after its purchase, the mobile handset had internet connectivity issues, battery backup problems.  The mobile handset would hang and stop functioning abruptly. The complainant approached the opposite party no.3, which is authorized service centre of the said mobile handset. It is alleged that despite repairs which were carried out in the said mobile handset, it was not functioning properly.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties in selling a mobile handset which was suffering from manufacturing defects, the complainant approached the District Commission seeking relief. 

3.                The opposite party no.1 & 3 were proceeded ex-parte.

4.                The opposite party no.2 in its reply resisted the complaint filed by the complainant and stated that the complainant had not purchased mobile handset from him and therefore he is not his consumer. It is further submitted that the subject mobile handset was not suffering from any manufacturing defects and alleged defects were result of product overuse.  It is therefore prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed.

 

-3-

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no. 2 & 3, jointly and severally to replace the subject mobile handset with a new one of same consideration within a period of two months.

6.                Heard.  Perused the record.

7.                Appellant, who appears in person argued that the subject mobile handset was suffering from manufacturing defects. It was not functioning properly since beginning, regarding which he had to approach the opposite party no.3 on several occasions.  Every time, the opposite party no.3 would keep the mobile handset for repairs and hand over the same after few days, but the problems were never resolved. He argued that the subject mobile handset was replaced by the opposite party no.3 once but the replaced handset was also not functioning properly.  He argued that the specific model was having manufacturing defects and the District Commission erred in giving directions regarding replacement of the same.  He argued that the complainant deserves cost of the said mobile handset along with compensation and costs.

8.                We find that the complainant had specifically mentioned in the complaint filed by him that the subject mobile handset was replaced once by the opposite party no.3, but the replaced mobile handset was also reporting problems. We find that the District Commission has not mentioned such allegations in the impugned order and has certainly not dealt with the same.  Clearly, the replaced handset was also not functioning properly and therefore, the complainant approached the District Commission.  On the aforesaid basis, we are of a considered view that the impugned order deserves to be modified.

-4-

9.                Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct refund of cost of the subject handset. The opposite party no.2 & 3 are accordingly directed jointly or severally to refund the cost of the subject mobile handset with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 27.06.2016 till realization.  The complainant also deserves to be compensated and therefore the opposite party no. 2 &3 are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with another sum of Rs.500/- as costs to the complainant. Compliance of the aforesaid order is directed to be done within six weeks from today.

10.               With modifications in the impugned order as aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed.

 

    (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)     (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                     PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER