Punjab

Sangrur

CC/93/2017

Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 93                                                                                           

                                                                Instituted on:   09.03.2017                                                                                 

                                                                 Decided on:    05.07.2017

 

Rajiv Kumar aged about 35 years son of Sh. Jagdish Chand resident of H.No.197/6, Ward No.7A, Pathshala Mohalla, Dhuri-148024, District Sangrur.        

 

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Flipkart India Pvt. Limited Bilaspur, Patandi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH-8, Opposite Tata Service Centre, Bilaspur, Haryana, through its Managing Director.  

 

2.   WS Retail Services Pvt. Limited Ozone, MANAY Tech Park No.56/1B, B-Block, 9th Floor, Garvebhaviplya Housur Road, Bangalore ( Karnataka) through its Managing Director.

 

3.     Lenovo India Pvt. Limited Ferns Icon Level-2, Doddenakund, Village Marathhalli outer Ring Road, Marathhalli, Post K.R.Puram, Hubbli, Bangalore -560037 through its Managing Director.                                                                   ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Vinay Jindal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIESNo.1&2     :     Shri J.S.Moudgill Advocate.

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3          :      Shri Sukhdeep Singh                        

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Rajiv Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Lenovo mobile model VT-116571/Vibe K5 plus online  from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.8485/- vide invoice dated 30.03.2016 under one year warranty.   In the month of April 2016, it started giving problem of displaying and in the month of July 2016 the said mobile stopped functioning and display of the mobile became totally disorder. The complainant approached the service centre i.e. OP no.3 at Patiala  but the official of the service centre of OP no.3 also showed their inability to repair the mobile  and said that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile. The complainant  number of times made requests to the OPs to solve the matter  but OPs did not hear the requests of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the price of the said mobile i.e. Rs.8499/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, it is stated that OP no.1 is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the mobile phone . It is further stated that  there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP and  complainant is not a consumer qua  the OP no.1. 

3.             In reply filed by OP No. 2, it is submitted that  the main grievance of the complainant relates to after sales and service issue in the product, where OP no.2 has no role to play, hence OP no.2 cannot be impleaded  as a necessary party in the present complaint.  It is stated that the present complaint should have been made only against the Manufacturer i.e. OP no.3 or its service centre. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.

4.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, purchase of the mobile set in question is admitted. It is submitted that no complaint call has been logged  for the IMEI number of the smart phone of the complainant and authorized service provider  has also confirmed that no complaint call has been logged by the complainant. The authorized representative has contacted the complainant over phone on various dates and communicated the offer of Free of Cost Service  but the complainant denied availing  the bonafide offer of the OP no.3.  The OP has always willing to repair the smart phone free of cost under warranty.    

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.1&2 have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 Ex.OP1/2, Ex.OP2/1, Ex.OP2/2,  and closed evidence.   Despite granting opportunities to Shri Sukhdeep Singh A/A for OP no.3 to produce the evidence on behalf of OPno.3 he failed to produce any document and ultimately on 03.07.2017 evidence of the OP no.3 was closed by order of the Forum.

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that complainant purchased Lenovo mobile model VT-116571/Vibe K5 plus online  from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.8499/- under one year warranty vide invoice dated 30.03.2016 which is Ex.C-6 on record . It is the case of the complainant in the month of April 2016, it started giving problem of displaying and in the month of July 2016 the said mobile stopped functioning and display of the mobile became totally disorder. The complainant approached the service centre i.e. OP no.3 at Patiala  but the official of the service centre of OP no.3 also showed their inability to repair the mobile. To prove his case the complainant has produced on record copy of job sheet dated 26.07.2016 Ex.C-8 and report of an expert alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-2 respectively wherein he opined that  after thorough checking  he found that liquid of the mobile is damaged and main board and ICM module  of the mobile set is also damaged and as such there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and due to that reason the mobile set is giving the said problems and the said problems are not curable.

6.             On the other hand, OPs  no.1 and 2 case is that OP no.1 is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the mobile phone  and the alleged defect in the product  cannot be associated with the working of OP no.1.  It is the specific case of OP no.2 that the grievance of the complainant relates to after sales and service  issue in the product where the OP no.2  has no role to play and the complaint against OP no.2 is false. The OP no.3 has stated in his written reply that  no complaint call has been lodgged for the IMEI number of the smart phone of the complainant but  without prejudice  it is submitted that on receipt of this instant complaint the OP no.3, as a manufacturer as a goodwill gesture  offered an amicable solution to the complainant through their authorized representative   i.e.  Free of cost service to the smart phone of the complainant.  We failed to understand  on what basis  the OP no.3  has stated that  no complaint  call has been logged  for the IMEI number of smart phone of the complainant when a job sheet dated 26.07.2016 Ex.C-8 issued by the service centre  of the OP no.3 is on record. The OP no.3 has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence despite  granting opportunities to prove their case that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we feel that the complainant has fully proved his case regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question by producing cogent evidence on record. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no.3 to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model or in the alternative refund the price amount of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs. 8499/- after receiving  defective mobile set in question alongwith it accessories. We further direct  the OP no.3 to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                  

              Announced

                July 5, 2017

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                            

Member            Member                         President