IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday, the 31^st   day of March, 2017.

Filed on 26..10..2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

    3)     Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

IN

CC/No.344/2016

Between

                Complainant:                                                             Opposite party:-

Sri Sudheer.K.1.Flipcart.com

Kunnukandam Coloni                                                   1^st Floor, No. 447/C

North Aryad. P.O                                                         1^st A Cross, 12^th Main

Nethaji, Alappuzha, Pin 688538                                    4^th Block, Koramangala

                                                                                                     Banglore – 56004

                                                                                         2.        Vibanika  E-Store                                                                                                                               36 Govindhan Street

                                                                                                    Ayyovo Coloni

                                                                                                    Near MR Hospital

                                                                                                    Aminjikarai

                                                                                                    Chennai-600029                                                                                                                                         

O R D E R

SMT.JASMINE.D. (MEMBER)

The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

The complainant has ordered a SONY XPERIA Z3 COMPACT BLACK D5833 mobile phone for an amount of Rs. 24,900/- through Flip cart.  The said product was delivered on 7/4/2016 after remitting the said amount. The complainant also purchased a USB cable and a back cover.  The phone has 1 year warranty and the accessories have 6 months warranty.  The product became defective within the warranty period and entrusted to the authorized service centre of the sony but they denied to repair the product under warranty stating that the phone was activated 2 years ago and demanded Rs. 12,000/- for repairing.  The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complainant seeking refund to the price of the mobile phone and accessories together with compensation.  

2. Notice against the opposite party served 1^st opposite party appeared before the Froum and filed version 2^nd opposite party did not appear before the Forum and hence 2nd opposite party was set exparte.

3. Version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

            Complaint is not maintainable.  The opposite party is engaged in providing trading and selling facility over internet.  1^st opposite party provide online marketing place to the sellers and buyers of product to facilitate the transactions in electronic commerce for various goods by and between respective buyers and sellers.  Flip kart platform  is an  electronic platform which acts as intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third  party sellers and independent customers.  These sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons.  The opposite party does not sell any products on Flip kart platform by the product are sold by third party sellers. Complainant is not a consumer of the 1^st opposite party the opposite party is neither a trader nor a service provider and does not exist any privity of contract between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party  has not charged any amount from the complainant for using  the Flipkart platform that the  1^st opposite party  submits that  role/ involvement of  1^st opposite party is as a intermediary only that it to provide online platform to facilitate the transaction.  The services of 1st opposite party are similar to a shopping mall where various shops are rented out to different sellers who independently carryout sale proceedings with the customers/ visitors of the shopping mall and in case of any defect in the goods sold or deficiency arising out of delivery of the product by such shop owners/ sellers in the shopping mall.  It is shop owner/ seller who is held liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall where such shops are situated. In the same way, the 1^st opposite party is not involved in the entire  transaction except for providing the online platform for the transaction and the concerned contracts of sale and purchase is between the seller and the buyer( here complainant) only and hence this 1^st opposite party shall not be held liable for any liability owing to such contract.  There is no deficiency in service of 1^st opposite party.  The complaint maybe dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and produce the original bill and warranty card which were marked as Ext. A1 and Ext.A2. Complainant produced the phone before the Forum which was marked as Ext.MO1

  5. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the Opposite Party the Forum has raised the following issues:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in the service on the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?

6. Issues 1 and 2:-

The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a SONY EXPERIA mobile phone for an amount of Rs. 24,900/- through flip cart.The product has 1 year warranty during the warranty period the product became defective and entrusted to the authorized service centre of the manufacturer but they refused to repair the product under warranty stating that the phone was activated 2 years ago and demanded Rs. 12,000/- towards repairing charges. The complainant sustained much mental agony. Hence this complaint.

The documents produced would show that the complainant purchased the product on 7/4/2014 through Flipcart and the product has 1 year warranty.The product became defective during the warranty period and according to the complainant he could not use the phone. Even though the complainant approached the service centre of the manufacturer they denied the warranty stating that the phone was activated 2 years ago.The documents produced shows that the mobile phone was purchased on 7/4/2014 and the said product has 1 year warranty. Since the mobile phone became defective during the warranty period the opposite parties are liable to replace the same or to refund its price.From documents it can be seen that the warranty for the accessories have been expired. So we can’t direct the opposite parties to refund its price.Even though the defect of the mobile phone was intimated to the opposite parties they did not bring any resolution to the problem.Therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.

In the result the complaint is allowed, the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs. 24,900/- to the complainant.The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation. The order shall be complied with in one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount 24,900/- shall carry

Interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization On compliance of the order theopposite parties can collect the MO1 from the office of the Forum.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of March, 2017.

                               Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

                               Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)          

                                                                                           Sd/-  Smt.Elizabeth George (President)  

APPENDIX:

Evidence of  the Complainant:

Ext.MO1         -           Mobile Phone

Ext.A1                        -           Delivery  bill 

Ext.A2                        -           Warranty Card

Evidence of  the opposite party:  Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                  By Order

          To                                                                                              Senior Superintendent

               Complainant/Opposite party/SF

Typed by: Br/-

Comprd by:-