Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/553/2014

Dr. Akhilesh Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/553/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20/08/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	15/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Akhilesh Grover S/o Shri Jagat Grover, resident of Outside Nabha Gate, Kishan Pura, Main Road, Near Mata Chintpurni Mandir, Sangrur, Punjab – 148001.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, 56/18 and 55/09, 7^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka (India) 560068, through its Director/ Partner/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.   Aldous Glare Trade & Exports, No.1003, First Floor, 9^th Main, Above Union Bank, Sector 7, HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560102, through its Managing Director/ Director/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.

 

3. L.G. Electronics India Private Limited, A Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi – 110017, through its Director/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.

 

4. NU Tech Enterprises, SCO 495-496, Sector 35-C, 1^st Floor, Chandigarh, through its Director/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Amit Mahajan, Advocate
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte
For OP Nos.3 & 4	:	Sh. Chand Deep Jindal, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one LG G2 D802 mobile phone through Opposite Party No.1, on 1.1.2014, for Rs.36,200/-, vide bill Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that just after 3.5 months of its purchase, the aforesaid mobile phone encountered display problem. Accordingly, it was taken to Opposite Party No.4 (Authorized Service Centre), which issued a job-sheet dated 6.5.2014 (Annexure C-4) and retained the handset. After replacing display, under warranty, when the mobile phone was handed over to the Complainant, he found that the replaced display was of very sub-standard quality and it had yellow blackish tint all over the body. It has been also alleged that the Complainant once again contacted the Opposite Party No.4 and they again replaced the display for the second time, but the problem persisted. Once again, the changed display was of very poor quality with yellow blackish tint all over the body. When this fact was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.4, it was informed that they had not received original kind of display from the company for these models. This forced the Complainant to write an e-mail to Opposite Party No.3 on 26.5.2014 (Annexure C-5), upon which he received a call from Opposite Party No.3 to submit the mobile phone with Opposite Party No.4 and they would replace the mobile phone with new one. Accordingly, the Complainant submitted the mobile phone with Opposite Party No.4 on 6.6.2014 (Annexure C-7). However, with a view to evade repair/replacement of the mobile phone, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that there was water seepage in the handset. Thereafter, the Complainant spiritedly followed the matter with the Opposite Parties to get the replacement of the mobile phone having manufacturing defect, but nothing was done to redress his grievance. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, the Opposite Party No.2 did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.12.2014.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the purchase of the mobile handset in question has pleaded that it (OP No.1) is an online market place and neither it is the Seller of the product nor did it issued the invoice in respect of the product. It has been asserted that the warranty on the product is extended by the Manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No.3. The terms & conditions of the warranty on the product are decided by the Opposite Party No.3 and answering Opposite Party has no role to play in the same.        It has been further pleaded that the answering Opposite Party was not aware of the grievance of the Complainant until the receipt of the present Complaint. It was only the Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.3) or the Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.4) who could comment on this aspect. Denying all other allegations and stating 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.

 

4.     Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 in their joint reply while admitting the factual aspects of the matter have pleaded that the display was not of sub-standard quality and it was the original display which was manufactured by the Company (Opposite Party No.3). It has been admitted that the Complainant deposited the mobile phone with the answering Opposite Party No.4 and the same was dead, which is itself evident from job-sheet (Annexure C-7). On the very same day, in the evening, after inspection by the Engineer of the answering Opposite Parties, the Complainant was informed that there was water seepage in the mobile, which was not covered under warranty and that the repair would be done on chargeable basis only. The Complainant refused to repair the mobile handset and did not turn up to collect the mobile handset from the Opposite Party No.4. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

5.     The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 & 4, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 & 4 have been controverted.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties. 

 

8.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 dated 1.1.2014 that the Complainant purchased one LG G2 D802 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.36,200/-. Annexure C-2 is the warranty card. The Complainant has placed on record Annexure C-4 dated 6.5.2014 a copy of the job-sheet with mention “LCD Replacement Spot in LCD” under the column ‘Defect Reported by Engineer’. As per Annexure C-6 the display of the handset was changed twice, but the fault regarding yellow blackish tint over the screen was still persisting. As per the case of the Complainant the Opposite Parties did not supply the original kind of display during these repairs. Further Annexure C-7 dated 6.6.2014 is another job-sheet with defect reported as ‘Dead’. Due to unsatisfactory approach of the Opposite Parties towards the defect reported, the Complainant sent one Complaint to the National Consumer Helpline, but even after that the grievance of the Complainant was not redressed. Annexure C-9 and C-10 dated 25.6.2014 are the copies of the Complaints by the Complainant to Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 respectively.

 

9.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that it being an online market place is neither the Seller of the product nor issued the invoice in respect of the same. It has been urged that the warranty on the product is decided by the Opposite Party No.3 and not by it.

 

10.     On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have admitted the sale and thus the defect of the handset and the replacement of the display. It has been further admitted that the Complainant deposited the mobile handset with Opposite Party No.4 in dead condition and on the same day the Engineer of Opposite Party No.4 inspected the handset and found water seepage in the same, therefore, its repair was not covered under the warranty.

 

11.     After careful perusal of the file, we feel that the replacement of the display of the handset within 04 months of its purchase as per Annexure C-4 dated 6.5.2014 is clear cut proof of the poor quality of the product. Importantly, vide Annexure C-7 dated 6.6.2014 again the handset in question was submitted to Opposite Party No.4 in dead condition. It is not understandable that when the handset was repaired properly by the Opposite Parties on 6.5.2014, then how could it stop working again within one month of the said repair. But the repair at this point of time was refused by the Opposite Parties alleging the water seepage in the handset. However, the Opposite Parties have not placed on record any cogent/authentic document to prove the same.

 

12.     In these set of circumstances, by non-providing of appropriate services and non-rectification of the fault in the handset to the utmost satisfaction of the Complainant and keeping the handset in their possession, the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are certainly deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant. Evidently, the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself, but not for lodging the complaint to the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice, in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4. We feel that only after getting exhausted of remedies available to him, the complainant took a decision for filing the present complaint.

 

13.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

[a]  To refund Rs.36,200/- being the price of the mobile handset;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment;  

 

[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

          The Complaint fails against Opposite Party No.1.

 

14.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  

 

15.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

15^th June, 2015                          

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER