Punjab

Sangrur

CC/339/2016

Amarvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart . com - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Nandpuri

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 339                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:   30.03.2016                                             

                                                                  Decided on:    29.09.2016

 

Amarvir Singh @ Amar son of Gurpreet Singh, resident of village Lakhmirwala, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Flipkart.com No.447/B, Ist A Cross, 12th Main, 4th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchagen,  Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, Karantka India through its M.D.

2.     WS Retail Service, Pvt. Limited Bilaspur Patoudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk, at NH8, Opp. Tata Service Centre, Bilaspur, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

3.     Vignesh Services SCO 189-190, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

4.     Manufacture of Redmi-2 Mobile Phone  to be disclosed by opposite party no.1 to 3.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri G.S.Nandpuri Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2  :      Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate                         

 

FOR  OPP. PARTY NO.3       :         Given up.                        

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Amarvir Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he online placed an order to purchase a  Mobile Phone Redmi-2 for an amount of Rs.6999/- under  order dated 31.03.2015 through OP No.1 which was delivered vide retail invoice dated 1.4.2015. The OPs gave  one year warranty/ guarantee. The said phone  did not work properly  from the very beginning  of its purchase due to manufacturing defect in it for which the complainant approached the OP no.3  who after some repair gave it back  but there was no progress in the mobile phone  and it again started to give problems. The OP no.3 told that the said mobile set could not be repaired  because it has manufacturing defect. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to change the mobile set with a new one or to refund the purchase amount of Rs.6999/- alongwith interest,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5500/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             The record shows that the OP No.3 was given up by the complainant by making a statement on 20.05.2016.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections on the grounds of suppression of material facts and maintainability have been taken up.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant is a consumer of the OP no.1 as there  is no privity of contract between the OP and the complainant . It is denied that the  OP No.1 provided guarantee  and warranty on the products sold.  It is submitted that  the warranty/ guarantee  on the products are provided  by the manufacturer  and subsequently honoured  by its authorized service centre  and not the OP no.1.

4.             In reply filed by OP no.2, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and  suppression of material facts  have been taken up.  On merits,  it is denied that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP no.2 as there is no privity of contract between the OP No.2 and complainant. The OP No.2 is merely a reseller on a web portal i.e. Flipkart.com. It is submitted that the product in issue was delivered to the complainant in time and there is no dispute about the same.  It is denied that the OP No.2 gave one year guarantee and warranty on the product in issue. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.1&2 has tendered Ex.OPs1&2/1 and Ex.OPs1&2/2 and  closed evidence.

6.             In the instant case, the complainant's case is that he purchased online one  Redmi mobile phone for an amount of Rs.6999/-  vide retail invoice number dated 1.4.2015 from the OP No.2 through OP no.1 under one year warranty. It has been further alleged that from the  beginning  the  said mobile is not working properly as  it started creating touch and screen problems  for which the complainant approached the OP no.3 who repaired it and gave back to the complainant but the defects in the mobile set were not rectified  and  problems persisted for which the complainant again approached OP no.3 who told him that there is manufacturing defect in it which could not be rectified.

7.             Against the version of the complainant the OPs no.1&2 have specifically denied the allegations leveled by the  complainant.  They have specifically stated that the complainant is not the consumer of the Ops no.1 and 2 as there is no privity of contract between the  opposite parties and complainant. It is specific case of the OPs no.1 and 2 that guarantee and warranty  services are provided by the manufacturer  and further honoured by its authorized service center i.e.  the Ops no.4&3 respectively and  not by the Ops no.1&2.

8.             The complainant has  stated in his complaint that  there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question but to prove his version he has not produced on record report of any expert which shows that the mobile set has a manufacturing defect. Learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 have specifically argued that the guarantee and warranty are provided by the manufacturer which  is further honoured by the service center of the manufacturer i.e. OPs no. 3&4 in the present case. The complainant has also stated that he approached the OP No.3 who told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in dispute but, surprisingly  the complainant had given up the OP No.3 in the present case by making a statement on 20.05.2016. Furthermore, the complainant has made the manufacturer of the product as OP no.4 in the present complaint but no whereabouts have been provided by the complainant.  We are of the considered view that the OPs no.3 and 4 are the necessary/ best parties but as stated above the complainant has failed to get them summoned. As such, we find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2.

9.             In view of the above discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. As such, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                             

                        Announced

                        September 29, 2016

 

 

 

          ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)         (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                           

             Member         Member                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-