Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Complaint Case No.175/15
Date of institution : 25.3.2015
Date of decision : 7.12.2015
Supreet Singh son of Sh.Jatinder Singh R/o 77-78, Anand Avenue, Back Lane Manav Public School, Amritsar.
..............Complainant
Versus
Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd., Ozone, Manay Techpark, 56/18, 55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560068 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer.
...............Opposite party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Updip Singh, Adv.
For the opposite party : Sh. Mohan Arora, Adv.
QUORUM : Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President, Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member, Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order Dictated by :
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Supreet Singh under the
-2-
provisions of Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one mobile MOTO G from the opposite party by placing order online for Rs.13999/- on 5.3.2014 and the same was delivered at the door step of the complainant later on and the payment was made from the complainant account. It is further alleged that the said mobile phone from the very beginning is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect and it used to hot up during usage and many a times restart of its own. The complainant made several complaints to the opposite party but they failed to hear the genuine request of the complainant. The mobile is now lying useless with the complainant for the last two months. The complainant alleges that he tried to find out the service centre of the opposite party but he could not find out. Complainant further alleges that the aforesaid act of the opposite party in supplying the defective/in operative mobile handset and thereafter not responding the complainant's request amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make and model or in the alternative refund the price of the handset with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.from the date of payment till realization. He also demanded compensation of Rs.10000/- alongwith litigation expenses.
-3-
2 On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in
which it was submitted that the opposite party is not a seller and not engaged in retail sales of the product. In the case in hand, the opposite party has not sold any produce to the complainant, hence, the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party owns and operates its trading facility platform over the internet under the domain name www.flipkart.com and developed a website under the said name and is engaged in the business of online marketplace, providing platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to facilitate transactions, electronic commerce, mobile commerce, by and between respective buyers and sellers,enables dealing in various multiple categories of goods. Opposite party submits that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. Opposite party denies that complainant purchased Moto G mobile phone for Rs.13999/- from the opposite party. The product was not sold by the opposite party. Rather the seller of the product is one WS Retail Services Private Limited, one of the sellers on flipkart.com. The opposite party is a mere intermediary and does not sell any goods on its own. The opposite party is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product. Also the warranty on the product is provided by the manufacturer of the product and not by the opposite party. Opposite party further submits that the
-4-
complainant has purchased a renowned brand in the market and it has authorised service centres in various cities. If any time, mobile set of the complainant was not manufacturer or visited that authorized service centres established by the manufacturer of the mobile set for redressal of the grievance. While denying and controverting other allegations, the opposite party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3 Complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit ex.C-1, copy of purchase bill ex.C-2, affidavit of Er.Rohit Kapoor ex.C-3.
4 Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Pandu Ranga Acharya, authorized signatory ex.OP1, copy of resolution dated 1.9.2014 ex.OP2.
5 We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by counsel for the opposite party and have appreciated \the evidence produced on record by both the parties with their valuable assistance.
6 From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased mobile phone Moto G from the opposite party by placing order online for Rs.13999/- vide invoice dated 5.3.2014 ex.C-2 with warranty of one year. Complainant stated that said mobile set was suffering from
-5-
inherent manufacturing defect and it used to hot up during usage and many a times restart of its own. Complainant made several complaints with the opposite party but they failed to hear the genuine request of the complainant. Said hand set is lying useless with the complainant. Counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party in supplying defective hand set to the complainant has acted in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
7 Whereas the case of the opposite party is that opposite party has not sold this product to the complainant. Opposite party owns and operates its trading facility platform over the internet under the domain name www.flipkart.com and has developed a website under the said name and is engaged in the business of online marketplace providing platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to facilitate transactions, electronic commerce, mobile commerce, by and between respective buyers and sellers. There is no privity contract between the complainant and opposite party and the opposite party only intermediary. Product was sold by Motorola Company to the complainant. Mobile set which the complainant has purchased is a renowned brand in the market and it has authorized service centres in various cities. Complainant should have approached the authorized service centre established by the manufacturer
-6-
for the redressal of his grievances. After using the mobile set for more than one year, the complainant has filed the present complaint without making manufacturer and service centre as a party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8 From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the mobile set Moto G from Motorola Company through the opposite party by placing order online vide invoice ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs.13999/-. Said mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 5.3.2014. Complainant submitted that said mobile set was suffering from manufacturing defects from the very beginning, but he could not produce any documentary evidence to prove that there was any defect in the mobile set. The opposite party is neither seller nor manufacturer of the product. They own and operate its trading facility platform over the internet and is engaged in the business of online marketplace and provides services to facilitate transactions, electronic commerce, mobile commerce, by and between respective buyers and sellers. Complainant neither made the manufacturer of the product i.e.Motorola Company as a party nor he got his mobile set produced, checked and repaired from authorized service centre of Motorola Company. Complainant
-7-
could not produce any evidence regarding any complaint made by the complainant regarding defect in the mobile phone to the manufacturer or any authorized service centre. He has produced affidavit of one Er.Rohit Kapoor who simply deposed that complainant approached him on 3.9.2015 for the purpose of inspection of the mobile set and he found that said mobile hand set when switched on, gets restarts of its own and heats up making it impossible to use it. Complainant purchased this mobile set on 5.3.2014 with one year warranty which expired on 4.3.2015, but the complainant got the said mobile handset checked from Er.Rohit Kapoor on 3.9.2015 i.e.after a lapse of a period of one and half year when the warranty of the product in question had already expired. The complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to the present complaint because only the manufacturer has to fulfill the warranty. Moreover, complainant has filed the present complaint after the expiry of the warranty period because the product was purchased by the complainant on 5.3.2014 and present complaint has been filed on 25.3.2015. Further, complainant could not produce any evidence as to when the complainant lodged complaint regarding the defect in the mobile set to the manufacturer or in any authorized service centre of the Motorola Company.
9 Resultantly, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove on
-8-
record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. Hence, this complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
7.12.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
(Anoop Sharma ) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member Member
