Date of filing :9.8.2017

Judgment : Dt.12.3.2018

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Shivam Pathak  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party e bay India Pvt. Ltd.

            Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant bought a cellular phone on March, 2017 as described ‘LENOVO K6 POWER DUAL 32 GB-3GB RAM’ with one year manufacturing warranty under product ID#182448394962. The Complainant has stated that he found the product defective and accordingly, lodged complaint with the Opposite Party but his grievance had not been redressed since he could not avail the facility of manufacturing warranty as the bill sent by the seller was not accepted by the service centre. The Complainant has further stated that he approached the Consumer Affairs Department but in spite of that the OP did not make any attempt to redress the dispute. The Complainant has further stated that he found the said product defective almost after one week from the date of delivery of the said product since the said set frequently went on ‘hang’ and also there was problem related to sound during calls. Having had such problem in his device the Complainant lodged complaint with the OP and also with the seller who sent him that device. The seller informed the Complainant that a manufacturing warranty was provided with the said device and therefore, he required to approach the service centre. The Complainant stated that he preferred to return the said device. However, he visited the service centre wherefrom it was revealed that the manufacturing warranty was expired in January, 2017. Hearing such, he showed the bill to prove that he purchased the same o n 15^th March, 2017 but the service centre said that he had to show the bill for the device and not for the porting bill. Accordingly, the Complainant asked the seller to generate the proper bill and being asked so the seller provided him with a bill which was stamped by “Amazon” and not by “e-Bay” and the purchaser’s name and details of the product as described in the said bill was not related to him and, therefore, the same was refused by the service centre on production of the same by him. Accordingly, the Complainant prayed for direction to return Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 13% p.a. to pay Re.1 towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- as cost of litigation.

            Notice was served but the OP did not contest the case so the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing vide Order No.7 dt.21.12.2017.

            The Complainant adduced affidavit-in-chief. The Complainant annexed some documents like E-mail and invoice of order.

Decision with reasons

            Evidently, the Complainant purchased a cellular phone manufactured by Lenovo. Further, he has referred a seller who generated bill regarding the purchased product. He has also referred service centre to which he approached for servicing of said device. However, he has not impleaded them as party to the instant case although the above mentioned three are necessary parties to the instant case.

            In such view of the matter, the case is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.

            Hence,

ordered

            That CC/474/2017 is dismissed ex-parte for non-joinder of necessary party.