Haryana

Karnal

CC/40/2018

Dr. Sushil Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart India Corporate - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Choudhary

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                             Complaint No.40 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 21.02.2018

                                                         Date of decision:29.11.2018

                                                                                       

Dr.Sushil Gupta son of Shri S.S.Gupta, resident of House no.100, Inside Capital Hospital, near Dyal Singh College, Dyal Singh Colony, Karnal.

                                                                  …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Flipkart India Corporate, Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 5600034, Karnataka, India.

2. The LeEco Company, DLF Corporate Park, Tower 4B, 2^nd floor, Unit no.201-204 Gurgaon, India-122002.

   …..Opposite Parties.

       

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

               

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present  Shri Mukesh Chaudhary Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

                OP no.2 exparte.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased a LeEco Led Television 65 inches from OP no.2 through OP no.1 for Rs.99,789/-, vide invoice dated 31.10.2016 dated 29.10.2016. The said Television has not been functioning properly since 17.06.2017, as some fault has developed and there is a vertical straight line always appears whenever the Television is on for watching the programme. It is irritation for the complainant to watch the TV and it is of no use, as it causes strain to the eyes and irritation to the mind. Since then the complainant is not in a position to use the said television for watching programme. It is further alleged that the complainant raised a complaint through e-mail on 17.06.2017, 22.06.201, 24.06.2017 alongwith attachments/images of fault. Thereafter, on 29.06.2018 the OP no.2 replied through e-mail and apologized for creating inconvenience caused to the complainant on their part and also demanded several details from the complainant, which was duly supplied to the OP no.2 on 30.06.2017 through e-mails but nothing was done on the part of the OPs. Thereafter, complainant raised many complaints and reminders regarding fault in the television through e-mails to the OP but in vain. Then complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the role/involvement of the OP no.1 is an intermediary only, that is, to provide online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its Flipkart platform. The services of OP no.1 are similar to a shopping mall where various shops are rented out to different sellers who independently carryout sale proceedings with the customer/visitors of the shopping mall and in case of any defect in the goods sold by such shop owners/sellers in the shopping mall, it is the shop owner/seller, who is held liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall where such shops are situated. In this way the OP no.1 I s not involved in the entire transaction except for providing the online platform for the transaction(s) and the concerned contract(s) of sale and purchase is between the seller and the buyer only. In the instant complaint the actual seller of the product is a third party seller, who is not even impleaded as a necessary party. The complainant wrongly arrayed the OP no.1 as a party in the present complaint. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 5.4.2018.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and closed his evidence on 17.7.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 made a statement that his written statement be read as his evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that on 31.10.2016 complainant purchased LeEco Television 65 inches from OP no.2 through OP no.1 for Rs.99,789/-. The aforesaid LeEco Television has not been functioning properly since 17.06.2017 as some fault has developed in the said television. The complainant raised many complaints and reminders regarding fault in the television through e-mails to the OP no.2 but nothing was done on the part of the OPs. The complainant also issued a legal notice through his counsel but despite of legal notice the OPs failed to do the needful and has not taken any measure to rectify the fault in the television. The fault occurred in the warrantee period. The complainant prayed for refund of the entire amount alongwith damages.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.1 is that the said ‘Flipkart platform’ is and electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The OP no.1 is neither a seller nor a manufacturer/producer/service centre of the product in this case. The product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by the OP no.2. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the OP no.1 and OP no.1 has no role in providing warrantee of the product sold by an independent seller. The counsel for OP no.1 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.4754 of 1999 decided on 20.08.1999 titled as Hindustan Motors Limited and others versus N.Siva Kumar and Ors. The counsel for OP no.1 prayed for dismiss the complaint qua the OP no.1.

9.             From the perusal of the file, the complainant sent many e-mails and reminders qua fault in the said television to the OPs. OP no.2 also replied to the same. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the product and it is the liability of the manufacturer to remove the manufacturing fault from the product. OP no.2 neither filed any reply nor appeared before this Forum to put its version. The version of the complainant goes unrebutted. So, we have no hesitation to admit the version of the complainant. Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we found deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.99,789/- the cost of the television to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant as compensation for rendering deficient service, harassment and litigation expenses. Complainant is also directed to handedover the defective television to OP no.2. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.11.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member