Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/137/2023

Amit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 137 of 2023

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 04.10.2023

                                                   DATE OF ORDER:          19.04.2024

 

Amit S/o Rohtash Village Sarangpur, Teh. & Distt. Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, Mobile No. 9050644103

 

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS               

 

1. Flipkart India Private Limited, Registered office at Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangalore, 560034. Through its authorized representative.
2. Konde Products & Services Private Limited, having its office at 3^rd Floor No. 1185, 5^th Main,7^th Sector, HSR Layout, Obeya Tranquil, Bangalore, Karnataka-560102 through its authorized person.
3. One plus Technology India Private Limited registered address at UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, KG Halli, D’souza Layout, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru 560001. Through its authorized person.

 

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

 

BEFORE: -    Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

 Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Deepanshu Tuteja, Advocate for OP no.1&2

                    Op no.   3 exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

1.           In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 01.07.2023 the complainant ordered  a One Plus Company Y 1S 80CM (32inch) HD Ready Smart Android TV (LED TV) with Android 11 and Bezel-Less Frame for personal use from the website/mobile app of the Flipkart for an amount of Rs. 15,688/- and has paid the amount by availing the Finance facility of the Bajaj Finserv. After the payment for the said product, OP no.1 Flipkart had issued the Tax invoice on 02.07.2023 bearing invoice number #FANLUC2400011330 and the ordered TV was delivered on 04.07.2023. At the time of purchase of the said LED TV, it was mentioned on the website of OP no.1 and also on invoice dated 02.07.2023 (Ex.C2) that there is one year comprehensive warranty and additional one year on panel provided by the manufacturer from the date of purchase. After one month of the purchase of the said LED TV, the screen/panel of the LED TV became black automatically. The complainant raised a repair request to the OP no.3 the service centre on 13.08.2023. It was further alleged that on 16.08.2023, the engineer of the OP no.3 had visited and thoroughly checked the said LED TV and after the inspection clicked the photos of the said LED TV from mobile and orally told that there was a defect in the screen/panel and the same would be replaced within 7 days by the service centre. The complainant was not given any written communication by the engineer with regard to the replacement of the screen /panel. When no action was taken, the complainant again raised concern with regard to the further status and solution of the said LED TV through email dated 16.08.2023. It is further alleged that on 18.08.2023, the complainant raised query with regard to the repair of the said LED TV but the customer support officials did not give any response. On 19.08.2023, the official of the one plus customer support team told that there was a physical damage in the said LED TV and the same was now out of warranty and might be repaired after paying the charges. There was no physical wear or tear in the said LED TV and the said LED TV was itself turned black on its own and the same was also informed to the customer Support Team of the OP no.3 on 19.08.2023. Thereafter the another official of the OP no.3 namely Ayaz Abdulla had demanded the clear images and videos of the said LED TV and the same were provided on 21.08.2023. However, they did not pay any heed and lastly denied to repair/replace the TV stating that they are unable to provide the service under the warranty. It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has to suffer physical harassment and mental agony.  Thus with these allegations,  the OPs should have replaced  the said LED TV or to refund the amount  of Rs. 15,688/- being price of LED TV alongwith interest @18% p.a. Further the compensation  of Rs. 51,000/- on account of pain, harassment and sufferings and Rs.11,000/- as litigation fees were sought  by the complainant.
2.           Upon notice, OP-1 appeared through counsel and submitted that the Flipkart Internet Private Limited is a company, which is engaged in online trading/selling over the internet through its website www.flipkart.com. It is averred that the answering opposite party provides online market place platform to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions with an aim to boost electronic commerce for various goods for buyers and sellers enabling them to deal in various categories of goods but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances and electronics etc. According to OP-1, the responsibility to deliver the products does not lie upon the answering opposite party, but it is upon the seller under the warranty clause.

It is further submitted that opposite party only provides an online platform where third party sellers sell their products and visitors/buyers purchase such products from the respective sellers on the website/app out of their own free will and choice. It is pertinent to mention here that advertisement with regard to price, specification, quality and description etc. are listed by the manufacturer of the product only and not by the opposite party. Opposite party no.1 only acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their product(s) to the users of the Flipkart Platform. It is submitted that these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by opposite party no.1 who has no role in providing warranty or return/refund of the product. It is the sole duty of the manufacturer and seller, who were not even impleaded as a necessary party, to remove the defects, if any to the entire satisfaction of the customer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.           OP no.2 in its reply has submitted that any kind of warranty/guarantee on the product is offered and provided by the manufacturer of the product only subject to terms and conditions determined by the manufacturers only and not by the answering opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4.           Op-3 did not appear and it was proceeded as ex parte vide order dated 16.02.2024.
5.           Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.03.2024. During arguments on 05.04.2024 complainant placed on record warranty card  document Mark A.
6.           Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1&2 made a statement on 06.03.2024 that written statement filed be read in his evidence.
7.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
8.           As per the complainant he had placed an order on 01.07.2023 for purchasing LED TV with the OP and the same was to be delivered by 04.07.2023
9.           In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the LED TV in question online through the OP no.1 on order date 01.07.2023 for Rs.15,688/- which  was delivered on 04.07.2023.  The copy of bill Ex.C2 is available on the case file.  The complainant’s plea is that after the one month of the purchase of the LED TV, the screen/panel of the LED TV became black. Consequently, the complainant has contacted the service centre i.e. OP no.3 and requested him to replace the defective LED TV but to no effect.
10.           Learned counsel for the OP No.1 has submitted that the service technician of OP no.3 has informed the complainant about physical damage of the LED TV and requested the complainant to get the LED TV repaired at his own costs as physical damage  is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions as applicable to the product but the complainant has refused to pay the repair costs
11.           During the course of arguments, the complainant has produced photographs Ex C5 the screen/panel of the LED TV became black.  Therefore, it appears that the LED TV in question was defective from the very beginning and it was not repairable.  Even the OP no.3 has failed to repair the LED TV despite approach of the complainant to the service centre.  In our view, it was the duty of the OPs either to repair the LED TV by replacing its part and in case of failure to repair the LED TV, the OPs should have replaced the LED TV of the complainant with new one.
12.           The complainant had purchased the LED TV on order dt.01.07.2023 for Rs.15,688/- vide bill Ex.C2 and he has filed the present complaint before this Commission against the OPs on 04.10.2023 and even on the date of filing of the present complaint, the LED TV of the complainant was within warranty period.  Non-repair of the LED TV within warranty period amounts to patent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Even during the pendency of the present complaint, there was an opportunity for the OPs to redress the grievances of the complainant but no efforts were made by the OPs in this regard. OP no.1 has delivered the LED TV and invoice was raised by OP no.2 and OP no.3 is service provider. All three OPs are jointly and severally responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. However, as the product LED TV has been found defective and not repairable, the OP no.3 who is service provider has now no role in replacement of the product. Hence, OP no.1&2 are jointly and severally responsible to replace the LED TV with new one.
13.            In the backdrop of foregoings and looking to the  circumstances, the OP No.1&2 are hereby directed to replace the defective LED TV of the complainant with new one of the same technical specifications, same model and brand.  The complainant is also directed to return the defective LED TV alongwith its all accessories to the OPs on receipt of the new product viz. LED TV from the OP No.1 or OP no.2.
14.           In case the LED TV of the same brand is not available, then OP No.1&2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,688/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
15.           The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only) for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/-(Rs.Five Thousand only) towards litigation expenses.
16.           This order be complied within 45 days from the date of decision, failing which OP no.1&2 shall be liable to pay further interest @12% p.a. from the date  of decision till its realization  to the complainant.
17.           This complaint is hereby allowed accordingly as indicated above.
18.           This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record-room.