BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 274 of 2016
Date of Institution : 10.10.2016
Date of Decision : 23.2.2018.
Kushal Garg aged about 25 years son of Shri Naresh Garg, resident of H.No. 150, Gali No.1, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ebay India Pvt. Ltd., 14th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) Mumbai- 400063 through its M.D./ Director/ Authorized person.
- DRYX Mob Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office SCO 80-82, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh- 160022 through its M.D/ Authorized person/ owner.
- Samsung Care/ Service Centre, Dwarkapuri, Sirsa through its Incharge/ owner/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties no.1 and 3 exparte.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that opposite party no.1 is engaged in the business of online shopping vide which the op no.1 is selling articles through online and they receive the order online and also receive the payment of the articles online and thereafter deliver the ordered article on the door of the customer for which the op no.1 is associated with so many vendors/ sellers as well as service providers and op no.2 is one of the vendor/ seller of the mobile of op no.1. That the op no.1 through media as well as advertisement through other sources claimed that they are selling all articles genuine, original and of high quality on lowest prices and also claimed to provide the services on door vide their policies of payment through cash on delivery as well as through RTGS and other sources and also claimed that their aim is to satisfy the customers from all aspects and agreed to provide the proper services at door. It is further averred that being impressed with the allurement of the op no.1, the complainant ordered a new mobile Samsung Galaxy S6 from op no.2 through op no.1 against a sum of Rs.31,490/-. The order was placed online and payment was also made through credit/ debit card online, which has been duly received by op no.1vide bill/ invoice no.V/15/18952 dated 26.2.2016. That guarantee of one year was also provided by the ops. It is further averred that as per the order placed by the complainant, the above said mobile set has been delivered to the complainant at Sirsa through the courier service of the ops. Thereafter, the complainant found the defect in the mobile set as the display of the mobile set was showing liquid and was not working properly. Hence, the complainant approached to op no.3 authorized service centre of the Samsung company and after due inspection the incharge as well as technician of op no.3 disclosed that the set of the complainant is out of warranty, whereas as per the date of invoice, the set of the complainant is still under warrantee and guarantee till date and when the complainant told the op no.3 about the same, op no.3 told that this set has already been repaired for three times prior to the date of invoice of the complainant. Meaning thereby the ops no.1 and 2 in collusion with each other intentionally and dishonestly sold the old repaired set to the complainant holding the same as new one, whereas they were well conversant with the fact that set is old one and they cannot sell to the complainant. Moreover, they had charged the amount for new mobile set which amounts to cheating, fraud, concealment with the complainant for which the complainant reserves his right to initiate criminal proceedings in the competent court of law. It is further averred that complainant however requested the op no.3 to verify the facts and requested to provide the services without any cost treating the set within period of warrantee/ guarantee and also requested to replace or repair the set but the op no.3 flatly refused to do so and raised his hands from helping the complainant in this regard. That thereafter complainant also approached the ops no.1 and 2 and brought the above said fact in their knowledge and requested them to refund the price of the mobile to him but they kept on avoiding the complainant on one false pretext or the other and finally about a week ago the ops have flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant for want of correct address.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of email Ex.C2, copy of tax invoice Ex.C3 and copy of application moved to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa Ex.C4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. From the copy of email Ex.C2 and copy of tax invoice dated 26.2.2016 Ex.C3, it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.2 through online service of op no.1 for a sum of Rs.31,490/- and mobile in question was delivered to the complainant at Sirsa. Further, the complainant has also placed on record copy of application dated 26.10.2016 moved to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa as Ex.C4 wherein he has alleged about above said fraud played with him by ops no.1 and 2. However, the complainant has failed to produce on record any job sheet/ document to show that the said mobile in question is old one and already repaired. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion in this regard on file. So, without report of any expert that mobile in question is old and already repaired, it cannot be presumed that ops have supplied an old and repaired set to the complainant. However, the ops no.1 and 3 have failed to appear before this Forum to contest the present complaint and rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. It is the legal obligation of the opposite parties no.1 and 3 to get the mobile in question repaired if same suffers from any defect since op no.2 is given up for want of correct address.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 3 and direct them to carry necessary repairs in the mobile in question of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any free of costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that mobile in question is not repairable, then the ops no.1 and 3 shall be liable to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile in question to the complainant within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops no.1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant will have to hand over the mobile in question to op no.3 i.e. local service centre running at Sirsa well in time against proper receipt and being a local service centre it shall be the prime liability of op no.3 to comply/ to get complied with the order as directed above well in time. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
