Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/368/2017

Harsh Allawdhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Yadav

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/368/2017
Date of Institution	:	28/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	14/09/2018

 

Harsh Allawdhi S/o Krishan Kumar Allawdhi, R/o H.No.48-A, Budhanpur, Opposite Sector 16, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Flipkart India Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Corporate Office at No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru, India – 560067.

2.     LeEco, through its Managing Director, having its Corporate Office at DLF Corporate Park, Tower 4B, 2^nd Floor, Unit No.201-204, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3.     HCL (Touch – Chandigarh), through its Manager, SCO 66-67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh – 160017.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Munish Yadav, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased one LeEco Le 2, Gold 32 GB mobile handset manufactured by Op.2 online from Opposite Party No.1 on 04.12.2016 for Rs.11,999/- vide bill/invoice Annexure C-1. After one month of its purchase, the said mobile handset started giving so many troubles like hang frequently, slow charging and rapidly power discharge due to which the Complainant was forced to charge the mobile after every two hours, at this the Complainant requested his friend who works at Chandigarh (i.e. Sh. Sudhir Yadav) to submit/deposit the mobile in question with Opposite Party No.3 - Authorized Service Center of Opposite Party No.2 and he submitted the same vide service job-sheet Annexure C-2.  At the time of issuing service job sheet, Opposite Party No.2 assured that it would rectify the defect and return the handset to Complainant within 15 days, but after 15 days, it lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 21.06.2017.
3.         Perusal of the record shows, Opposite Party No.2 was not served on the given address and evaded service and it was served by way of publication of proclamation in the Dainik Bhaskar Gurgaon and vide order dated 29.05.2018, allowed itself to be proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that it does not sell any products to end customers. The mobile handset in question was sold by Consulting Rooms Pvt. Limited which has not been arrayed as party in the present Complaint. It has been urged that answering Opposite Party is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the mobile handset in question and hence the alleged defect in the product cannot be associated with it. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting Parties.
8.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, the copy of the invoice that the Complainant online purchased one LeEco Le 2 (Gold, 32 GB) mobile handset for Rs.11,999/- on 04.12.2016 from Flipkart (Opposite Party No.1) manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. Annexure C-2 is a copy of service job sheet dated 14.12.2017 showing that the subject mobile handset was deposited with the Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Opposite Party No.3, with the reported fault battery slow charge & receiver issue. The Complainant has alleged that ever since then, the mobile handset in question is lying with the Opposite Party No.3 for want of repairs and it lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.
9.         Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has argued that Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the products that are listed on its website by various third party sellers. However, we are not impressed with this limb of argument. Since the product was sold at the platform of Opposite Party No.1, we are of the concerted opinion that Opposite Party No.1 is solely liable if the product sold by a third party seller on its platform turned to be defective product. Thus, Opposite Party No.1 cannot be allowed to take a shield, to evade its liability on the ground that the Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website.
10.         In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, who were duly served, and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is thus, established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice. Also, the Opposite Parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant when contacted by him, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them. It is worthwhile to mention that as the handset was used by the Complainant for around one year, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
11.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.5,999/- (after deducting 50% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

12.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 

 

13.      The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
14/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	President
“Dutt”