Haryana

Kurukshetra

221/2017

Sharwan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipcart - Opp.Party(s)

Akhil Bhasin

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.221/17.

Date of instt. 17.10.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 16.2.18.

 

Sharwan Kumar son of Tulsi Ram, resident of village Bir Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, now at House No.127, Sector-3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Flip kart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Bengaluru, through its Managing Director/Chairman.
2. F1 Info Solutions & Services Private Limited, SCO No.274, 1^st Floor, Sector-32(D), Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.
3. ASUS Technology Private Limited 4C, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Veera Desal Road, Industrial Area, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

 

Present:         Sh. Akhil Bhasin, Adv. for complainant.

 Op No.2 ex parte.

 Sh. Rakesh Arora, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh. Deepak Bhat, Adv. for OP No.3.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sharwan Kumar against Flip Kart and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased one Mobile set “Asus Zen Phone Selfie” bearing IMEI No.352175070744861 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.17,999/- on 16.9.2015 and the said hand set was delivered to the complainant through courier at Kurukshetra. In the month of September, 2017 the hand set was having problem i.e. display of phone had disappeared and the complainant approached Ops No.1 & 3 and as per their directions the complainant took the hand set before Op No.2 and asked to repair the same. Thereafter the agent of OP No.2 took the hand set and a job sheet was prepared mentioning therein that the problem of LCD, display, grabled etc. vide job sheet dated 12.9.2017. The Op No.2 asked to pay a sum of Rs.250/- as advance and the same was paid vide receipt dated 12.9.2017 and the OP No.2 kept the hand set and asked to visit after one week. The complainant approached the Op No.2 on 20.9.2017 but the staff of the OP No.2 asked to wait for another two days. On 22.9.2017 the complainant visited the OP No.2 and the staff of OP No.2 checked the hand set and told that the hand set is dead and then the complainant requested to replace the hand set but they flatly refused to get it done. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to refund the amount of hand set i.e. Rs.17,999/-  to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice Opposite Parties appeared. OP No.1 contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts as the complainant has considered the answering OP as seller of the product which is complete negligence on the part of complainant; that the company is engaged, among others, its website www.flipkart.com and mobile application and the answering OP provides online marketplace technology and or other mechanism services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions electronic commerce for various goods by and between respective buyers and sellers ; that the complainant has purchased the product from one of the sellers listed on the flip kart platform which is also evidenced from the copy of seller tax invoice which clearly states that the order is through flip kart and the answering OP is not invoked in the entire transaction executed between the seller and the complainant.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated.

4.            OP No.2 has failed to become present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28.11.2017.

5.            OP No.3 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not concealed the true and material facts because the prayer of the complainant is beyond warranty terms; that the manufacturer of the said product extended LIMITED/WARRANTY terms and the same have been intentionally concealed by the complainant because the hand set of the complainant is out of warranty; that the allegations of the complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in the hand set in the absence of an expert report, miserably fails and as such, the present complaint deserve to be dismissal. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

6.            Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence to prove their version.

7.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.            From the invoice/cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was delivered to the complainant on 15.9.2015 for the sale consideration of Rs.17,999/-. From the perusal of Job Sheet Annexure C2 it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.3, who is manufacture of the unit in question.

9.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :16.2.2018                                (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)  

  Member