IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 150/2019 (filed on 18/09/2019)
Petitioner : Jayesh A.P.
S/o. N. Palayya,
Velamparambil Building,
Park lane road, Kottayam -1.
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) Flipcart,
Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd.
NDR Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.
SF No. 525, 526,529-533,
Okili palayam, Palludam Road,
Othukalmandapam,
Coimbatore, Tamil nadu.
2) Apple India Pvt. Ltd.
19th Floor, Concorde Tower C,
UB City No.24, Vittal,
Mallayya Road, Banglore,
Karntaka, Pin – 560001.
(Adv. Bobby John, Adv. Asha Antony, Adv. Anusha Murti and
Adv. Esha Suchak)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant had ordered for an Apple head phone through the 1st opposite party on 31/08/19. But the complainant had received an Apple head phone, which was not with the specification for which he had ordered. The said head phone was not fit for using on his mobile phone and with a substandard quality. The complainant had contacted the opposite party several times demanding to replace the head phone. But the opposite party did not replace the head phone with the specification for which the complainant had ordered. The above said act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and complainant had suffered much loss and sufferings due to the above said act of the opposite party.
Though the 1st opposite party received notice and did not care to appear before the Forum or file their version. Hence 1st opposite party is set exparte. On receiving notice from this Forum, 2nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows.
The complaint is barred by law as the complainant has no cause of action against this complaint against opposite party 2. The complaint did not provide any document to prove unfair trade practice of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant did not request the 2nd opposite party to deliver the head phone with the specification, he has ordered. The complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant did not produce any document to show that head phone received by the complainant from the opposite party 1 is an Apple product. The complainant is required to contact the Apple authority’s service provider for any grievances about the head phone purchased. The complainant has not approached Apple Authorised Service Provider for any grievances.
The opposite party no.2 is a world renowned market and innovation leader and has been the flag-bearer of technological advancements in the telecommunication devices, computing the communication space. The present complaint is a clear example of frevalous litigation. There is no unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In order to prove his case, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 is marked. 2nd opposite party has not adduced any evidence and submitted that they have no documentary evidence.
On the evaluation of complaint, version and available documents, we frame the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
- Relief and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
The specific case of the complainant is that on 31/08/2019 he had ordered an Apple head phone through the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.2,199/-. He deposed before the Forum that he had received a head phone without the specification for which he ordered and it was not fit for using on his mobile phone. Ext.A1 is the invoice dtd.31/08/19 for Rs.2,199/-. On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that it is an invoice for head phone WC94987 / Apple HSN:85183000 sold by Shreyash Retail Pvt Ltd. On the other hand the contesting opposite party contented that there is no evidence to show that the head phone received by the complainant is the Apple head phone. Ext.A1 proves that the head phone received by the opposite party is an Apple head phone. 2nd opposite party has no case that they have delivered Apple head phone with the specification which the complainant has ordered. Section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act defines “ ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that he had received head phone which lacks the specification for which he had ordered. Neither in the complaint, nor in the affidavit complainant did not disclose the specification for which he had ordered and the specification of the head phone which he had received. In the absence of evidence to show that the complainant had received a head phone without the specification for which he had ordered. We cannot come to a conclusion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Therefore we are in the opinion that the complaint is devoid merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2020.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. M.K. Anto, MemberSd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of invoice dtd.31/08/19.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
