Punjab

Sangrur

CC/23/2019

Amit Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Kumar Grover

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 23

 Instituted on:   21.01.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     24.07.2023

 

Amit Aggarwal son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, R/O Street No.2-A, Farid Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Korammangala, Bangalore-560034 through its Managing Director.

2.             Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. Rectangle No.136, Killa No.137, Killa No.19/2,20,21,22/1, Rectangle No.147, Killa no.15,16,24/2,25/1,25/2 Rectangle No.151, Killa No.5/2, Patli Hazirpur, Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon-123506 through its Managing Director.

3.             Onida, MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Roads, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400093 through its Managing Director.

4.             Raj Electric Care, Near Housing Board Colony, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its partner/Prop.

             ….Opposite parties 

For the complainant:             :Shri  Devi Lal, Adv.              

For the OP No.1                  :Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For the OP No.2                   :Shri J.S.Moudgil,Adv.

For the OP No.3                   :Shri P.S.Rattan, Adv.

For the OP NO.4.                 :Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                 Sarita Garg, Member  

                 Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

               

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant online purchased one Onida LED smart TV 43 inch full HD  by spending an amount of Rs.26,248/- which was having one year warranty.  It is further averred that  the LED in question was delivered to the complainant on 23.10.2017 with bill dated 16.10.2017.  It is further averred that the slot SPDIF at the back side of the LED which is used for attaching the extra speakers (Home Theater) through optical fibre was not supporting the function for connecting  the extra speakers through SPDIF slot, whereas the same is mentioned on the LED itself.  The complainant though approached the customer care of the OP number 3 and raised the complaint regarding the said defect, who deputed the engineer to do the needful, but he failed to set right the SPDIF slot. Further case of complainant is that in the month of September, 2018 the said LED started to give another problem of AV function as the speakers were not working with the AV wire.  Though the complainant raised the complaint with the OP number 3, but nothing was done. The complainant also requested the OPs to refund its price, but nothing was done.  Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay/refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.26,248/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and that the complainant has presented the present complaint in a very manipulative manner. It is stated further that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer qua the OP, therefore, it is prayed that the complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious should be dismissed. On merits,  it is submitted that the complainant purchased the product through online portal. It is stated further that the OP number 1 is not the manufacturer of the product in question. However, any defect in the said LED has been denied. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts and has not approached this Commission with clean hands and that the OP number 2 is not involved in selling the product. However, it is stated that the complaint is related with the defect in the product which was manufactured by OP number 3, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against OP number 2 is false, frivolous and without any basis and should be dismissed. On merits, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto as the answering OP does not know about the condition or configuration of the product in question.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, objections are taken up on the grounds that this complaint is not maintainable and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. However, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the LED in question through online for Rs.26,248/- from the OP number 1 and 2 and the OP number 3 is the manufacturer and OP number 4 is authorized service centre of the said LED. It is further averred that the complainant has no contract with the OP number 3 of any kind.  The allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto by OP number 3.  Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.   

5.             Record shows that OP number 4 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 4 was proceeded against exparte.

6.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant online purchased from OP number 1 and 2  one Onida LED smart TV 43 inch full HD  by paying an amount of Rs.26,248/- which was having one year warranty.  It is further contended by the learned counsel that the LED in question was delivered to the complainant on 23.10.2017 with bill dated 16.10.2017.  It is further contended that the slot SPDIF at the back side of the LED which is used for attaching the extra speakers (Home Theater) through optical fibre was not supporting the function for connecting  the extra speakers through SPDIF slot, whereas the same is mentioned on the LED itself.  The complainant though approached the customer care of the OP number 3 and raised the complaint regarding the said defect, who deputed the engineer to do the needful, but he failed to set right the SPDIF slot. Further ld counsel for complainant has contended that in the month of September, 2018 the said LED started to give another problem of AV function as the speakers were not working with the AV wire.  Though the complainant raised the complaint with the OP number 3, but nothing was done.

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs 1 to 3 has admitted the sale and purchase of the LED through online. However, any defect in the LED in question have been denied. It is further contended that the business of the OPs falls within the definition of an ‘intermediary’ under section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and complaint should be dismissed with special costs.

9.             To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-2 affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint and Ex.C-1 is the copy of invoice showing purchase of the LED in question. Further Ex.C-3 is the expert report dated 15.1.2019 prepared by one Tilak Raj Proprietor Tilak Electronics wherein it has been clearly mentioned that on 13.1.2019 Amit Aggarwal complainant came to him for checking of his LED and he retained the LED in question for two days and used the same and found that the LED was giving the problem SPDIF out slot is not attached with optical fibre wire and the speakers were not working with the AV wire and further stated that this is due to manufacturing defect in the LED.  This fact is further supported by the affidavit of Shri Tilak Raj Ex.C-4.  On the other hand, the OP number 1 and 2 has produced affidavit of Mr. Satyajeet Bhattacharya, who is authorized signatory and has stated that the contents mentioned in the complaint are true and it is further stated that the OPs number 1 and 2 are only intermediary and they have nothing to do with the manufacturing of the LED in question.  OP number 3 has also produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of one Jasbir Singh wherein he has admitted the purchase of the LED in question through OP number 1 and 2 but any defect in the LED in question has been denied.  After perusal of documents and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we may mention here that the OP number 3 did not take any steps to get checked the LED in question from their engineer to submit the report whether there is any defect in the LED in question or not.  Even OP number 3 did not even chose to replace the defective LED in question with a new one.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 3 that why they did not chose to even check the LED in question, whereas the complainant has produced Ex.C-3 expert report wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the LED in question  is suffering with the manufacturing defect, which cannot be removed by any of the repairs.  In the circumstances we find it to be a clear and fit case, where the amount of Rs.26,248/- being the sale price of the LED in question  deserves to be refunded to the complainant being the Ops supplied to the complainant a defective LED which was suffering with manufacturing defects.

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs  number 1 to 3 to refund  to the complainant an amount of Rs.26,248/-. We further direct the complainant to return the defective LED with all its accessories to the OPs number 1 to 3 at the time of receiving the payment under proper receipt. We also direct them to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.   This order be complied with by the opposite parties number 1 to 3 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.    A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

July 24, 2023.