Date of filing: 03.09.2019
Date of Disposal:12.12.2022
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1388/2019
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Madhusudhan M,
S/o Munireddy,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at Chandapura,
Iggaluru, Near National,
Public School, Surya City,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru District.……COMPLAINANT
In-person
Flipkart Internet Private Limited,
Buildings, Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village,
Outer Ring Road,
Devarabeesanahalli Village,
Bengaluru-560 103.
And also at:
M/s Konda Products and Services Private Limited,
Office No.1023,
Regus Brigade IRV Centre,
-
Nalluralli Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka.…… OPPOSITE PARTY
Rep by Sri.Chinmay J.Mirji, advocate
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person has filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,000/- compensation and such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased Asus Zenfone Max pro M1 Grey 64 GB mobile through Flipkart.com and had booked for the same on 19.08.2019 and it was delivered on 20.08.2019 through Flip kart courier. Further, it is not in dispute that the complainant had raised a return request stating that there was damaged in the product and the opposite party had informed the seller with regard to the return request raised by the complainant and the seller has sent their technician to examine the product and had sent a report to the opposite party.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that on the return request made by the complainant through flipkart app and the opposite party took time until 24.08.2019 and on 24.08.2019 has sent Jevva Tech but the said Tech did not gave proper reply to the customer and submitted a fake report to the flipkart stating that the customer was happy with the product. Further, the opposite party hide the seller contact details. Hence, the opposite party had cheated the complainant. Thereby, the complaint came to be filed.
4. It is the further case of the opposite party that the technician sent by the seller had examined the product and there was no defect in the product as alleged by the complainant. Further, the opposite party is not involved in the entire transaction in between seller and complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. Hence, there is no liability on the part of the opposite party. Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.
5. None of the parties have filed affidavits in the form of their evidence to prove their case. The complainant has filed list of documents in support of his case.
6. Counsel for the opposite party has filed written arguments.
7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the
compensation as sought ?
iii) What order ?
8. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In negative
Point No.2 : In negative
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
9.POINT NO.1:- On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 20.02.2020 the case was posted for the evidence of complainant, as the complainant did not adduce evidence. On 15.10.2020 the evidence from the side of the complainant was taken as ‘Nil’. Thereafter, the case was posted for the evidence of opposite party and since the opposite party did not adduce evidence on 28.01.2021, the evidence from the side of the opposite party is taken as ‘Nil’. Thereafter on 01.04.2021 an application been filed by the opposite party seeking permission to lead evidence. The application was allowed and an opportunity was given to the opposite party to lead evidence. In spite of that, the opposite party did not lead evidence. Section-38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contemplates that “every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record”. Further, Clause-9 of the said provision contemplates that “the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of receiving of evidence on affidavits”. We feel since the above said provision has not been complied, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Thereby, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in negative.
10. POINT NO.2:- In view of the discussions made above and findings given on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought or otherwise. Accordingly, we answer this point in negative.
11. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;
-
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 12th day of December, 2022)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
Witness examined for the complainants side:
Documents marked for the complainant side:
- Phone conversation.
- Photo copies of phone.
- SMS sent by opposite party
- Damaged of the box.
- Invoice copy.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-