Flipkart India Pvt. ltd V/S Satyawan Singh - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/383/2017

Satyawan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sunder Singh Sandhu

05 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.383 of 2017

Date of instt. 20.11.2017

Date of decision:05.11.2018

Satyawan Singh son of Ishwar Singh, resident of village Bhambreri, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

…….Complainant Versus

1. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., c/o no.447/B, 1^st A Cross 12^th Main, 4 Block opp. BSNL Telephone exchange Koramangla Banglore, 560034 Karnatka through its authorized signatory.

2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 1^st floor Ambience Corporate office Tower Ambience Island ND-8 HUDA, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

3. Tara Tele & Mobile shop no.35, Mela Ram School Market, New Sachdeva Hospital, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

…..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 S.S.Sandhu Advocate for complainant.

Shri Amit Sachdeva Advocate for OPs no.1 and 3.

Shri Atul Sharma representative for OP no.2.

(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 mobile set Model Panasonic P55 Novo having IMEI no.352452082543056 and 352452082598050, vide order ID:OD508218981929955000 dated 28.01.2017 for Rs.5999/- from OP no.1 with the warranty of one year. After some days the said mobile started giving problems of auto display blank, hanging and auto off. Complainant approached the authorized service centre of the company on 17.6.2017 and reported the abovesaid issues. OP no.3 repaired the unit by replacing the software and handed over the mobile to the complainant but on 26.6.2017 the same problem occurred. The complainant again approached the OP no.3, vide work order no.RVSRN1706TTM00057. The OP no.3 checked the mobile set and said that there is manufacturing defect in the unit and some parts to be replaced but parts were not available in stock and it would be take time for 15 days. Complainant approached the OP no.3 after 15 days but engineer of the company again demanding more time. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.3 for several times but OP no.3 always prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. The unit is lying with the service centre of the company since 27.6.2017. After that complainant requested the OPs several times the unit is still in warranty so either to repair the unit or to replace the same but OPs did not pay any heed to his genuine request. 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 his written version stating therein that the complainant had purchased the product from OP no.1 rather the complainant is confused with

3. OP no.2 filed its separate written statement stating therein that the complainant had purchased the handset on 28.01.2017. It is further stated that the complainant made a complaint for charging defect in the handset on 27.06.2017. It is further stated that the handset after update software was handed over to the complainant by service centre on 29.6.2017. The second complaint regarding battery storage issue was received from the complainant on 1.7.2017. The handset after replacing the PCB was handed over to the complainant on 15.07.2017. There was again a problem in the PCB of the said handset and the complainant called to the Authorized Service Centre. It is stated that the Service Centre called to the complainant regularly for about one month to visit the service centre for repair. The service centre repaired the handset and informed the complainant to come and collect his handset but the complainant did not come to collect his handset from the service centre. It is further stated that the handset has been still lying at the service centre in repaired condition since October, 2017 but the complainant is asking for refund alongwith compensation with malafide and unjustly enrich himself. It is denied that the Engineer of the OP had informed the complainant that there was any manufacturing defect in the unit that the parts to be allegedly replaced were not available in the stock as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the OP no.3 made a statement that the written statement of OP no.2 be also read as written version of OP no.3.

5. Complainant tendered into evidence documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed their evidence on 14.05.2018.

6. OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Atul Sharma Ex.RW1/A and closed their evidence.

7. 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.

8. The counsel for the complainant argued that on 28.1.2017 the complainant purchased a mobile model Panasonic from OP no.1 on the payment of Rs.5999/-. The said mobile started giving trouble after some days. The complainant approached OP no.3 thrice due to defect in the mobile phone and OP no.3 repaired the unit by replacing the software and some parts but the defect could not be removed. Now the unit is lying on the service centre of the company since 27.06.2017. OPs neither replaced the same nor refunded the amount paid by the complainant while purchasing the unit. Now the complainant had purchased the new handset of the other company and prayed for allow the complaint.

9. On the other hand, the counsel for OP no.1 argued that the OP no.1 is a wholesaler and is involved in B2B sales, and does not sell any product to end consumers. The OP no.1 is not a manufacturer of the unit, so is not liable of any defect in the unit and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10. The counsel for OPs no.2 and 3 argued that the complainant had purchased the handset on 28.01.2017 and after updating software the handset was handed over to the complainant on 29.06.2017. The second complaint was received on 1.7.2017, after replacing the PCB, the handset was handed over to the complainant on 15.07.2017. On the third complaint, the handset was taken in service centre and after repair the same complainant was called many times to collect his handset but the complainant did not came to collect the handset and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11. Admittedly, the handset was purchased by the complainant on 28.01.2017. Due to the defect in the handset, complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3 thrice. As per reply filed by OP no.2, firstly the time taken was 2 days and secondly it was 15 days for repairing the handset. Third time, the said handset was repaired and still lying at the service centre in repaired condition since October, 2017. Meaning thereby, handset is a defective one and the complainant again and again approached the OPs no.2 and 3 to repair the same and for repairing the handset the OPs no.2 and 3 kept the same in its custody and complainant have faced difficulties and wasted his valuable time for such pity work. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.2 and 3.

12. Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.5999/- the cost of the mobile set in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the handset till the date of realization. We further direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation for rendering deficient service. We further direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the OPs no.2 and 3. This order shall be complied 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:05.11.2018