Haryana

Karnal

CC/61/2022

Kamal Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.Mohan

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 61 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 02.02.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 16.07.2024

 

Kamal Verma son of Shri Jasvinder Kumar, resident of  near Ravi Dass Mandir, ward no.6, Indri District Karnal, aged about 22 years (Aadhar no.2185 5402 5092.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, Ground floor no.7, Main 80 feet road 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Banglore-560039, Karnataka through its Managing Director.
2. Indispirit Pvt. LTd. Rectangle no.06,07, 08 and 13 village Khalikpur Tehsil Badli District Jhajjar.
3. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. EC2 Campus, HP Avenue, Survey no.39 Part Electronic City, Phase-II, Hosur road, Banglore-560100 through its Managing Director.
4. HP Service Centre, SCO 107, 1^st floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Service Head Ms. Indu Bala.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur..…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                 Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs no.1&2.

                 Shri Akshat Sharma, counsel for the OP no.3.

                 OP no.4 exparte, vide order dated 19.04.2022.

 

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant placed an order ID no.OD119998201714364000 dated 19.10.2020 to the OP no.1 for purchasing a HP Pavilion Gaming Ryzen 5 quad Core 3550H- (8GB/ITB HDD/Windows 10 Home/4GB Graphics/NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1650) 15-ec0101AX Gaming Laptop having IMEI/ Serioal no.5CD034KHT3) and that was delivered to the complainant by the OP no.2, vide invoice no.FADY822100075952 dated 29.11.2020. The OP no.1 charged an amount of Rs.48890/- from the complainant. The aforesaid product has been manufactured by the OP no.3 and has been carrying the warranty of one year. On 11.01.2021, the said laptop stuck and showed screen of hard-disc error with error code ‘3f1’ and got turned-off for around 4-5 hours. Then complainant contacted the consumer support and they had just done trouble shooting and installed bios updates and same drivers but issue like screen freezing and slow performance arises in the said laptop. On 23.01.2021, wifi disconnection and battery income were not shown by the said laptop, then complainant again contacted the HP support assistance and they reinstalled the window, bios as well as some drivers but the problem could not be sorted out. The said product is having manufacturing defect, hence complainant asked the OPs for refund of the amount paid by him or replacement of said laptop but OPs refused to do so. On 17.03.2021, at once some whites spots came on the screen of said laptop and some are noticeably coming. The complainant contacted the OP no.3 in this regard but they did not bothered for the same. The complainant also shared the image of the screen to the OPs no.3 and 4 but to no effect. On 14.04.2021, complainant filed a complaint with the OPs no.3 and 4, vide complaint no.5064567669 for the slow running of laptop processing and wifi disconnection, screen freezing problems but OPs again installed the window, bios and drivers to PIN the problem. On 18.08.2021, the white spots on the screen started reproducing and the number of spots were increased, the complainant again filed complaint and shared the image of screen then OPs no.3 and 4 accepted to change the part and arrange Engineer visit on 27.08.2021 but within two days on 22.08.2021 the computer got powered off and not able to power on and complainant again made complaint to OPs no.3 and 4 and they again tried to troubleshoot  and assigned the Engineer to PIN it (motherboard) on 27.08.2021. Ultimately on 27.08.2021, Engineer visited and fined the LCD of laptop but did not pined the mother board and in the presence of Engineer, the laptop was freezed and started showing blue screen. On 03.09.2021, the Engineer revisited and replaced the screen and motherboard again but broken the Bazeel (i.e. body of laptop) and did not fitted the screen properly. After one or two weeks senior Engineer came and refitted the screen and motherboard and assured that now everything is all right and laptop would not give any problem. On 01.10.2021, the complainant again complaint about wifi error, Bluetooth error, screen flickering and no power issue in said laptop to the OPs no.3 and 4 but they did not able to fix the issues. On 07.10.2021, after one month OP raised the case for bezel they had broken, reopened the screen and refited with generic taping on 10.10.2021. On 26.10.2021 after struggling a lot OP no.4 reinstalled the operating system too in the said laptop but issues remained the same. On 08.10.2021, OPs no.3 and 4 replaced the wifi card and charger of the said laptop but not able to fix the screen flickering and laptop auto shutdown issues. The complainant visited the OP no.4 on number of times and requested to replace the said laptop is having manufacturing defect but OP no.4 started postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and on 27.11.2021 the OP no.4 refused to replace the said laptop. The complainant then made request for the refund of the amount paid by him as price of the said laptop but OP no.4 also refused to do so. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP provides an online market place platform/technology and /or other mechanism/service to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances, electronics etc. It is further pleaded that said Flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. It is further pleaded that sellers are separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. The OP does not directly or indirectly sell any products on the flipkart platform. Rather all the products on the flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by the OP, on terms decided by the respective sellers only. In the present case, it can be evidenced that the actual seller of the product is a third-party seller  i.e. OP no.2. The grievance of the complainant is with respect to the alleged defects in the goods and after sale services provided by the manufacturer i.e. OP no.3 and/or the service centre engaged by the manufacturer i.e. OP no.4 under the manufacturer’s warranty clause, not the OP. The complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP in the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts.  On merits, it is pleaded that  OP is an online reseller registered on “Flipkart.com” and is not the manufacturer but an online reseller and the products sold by OP carry warranty issued/ provided by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defects subject to the terms and conditions determined by the manufacturer only. It is further pleaded that complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that after using the said laptop for more than two months, the complainant found Hard-discs error with error code ‘3fi’ and he has also admitted that alleged defect is a manufacturing defect. For grievance resolution, the complainant approached to the service centre of manufacturer i.e. OP no.4, which is also admitted the said contents. This clearly shows that complainant was aware and had knowledge of the fact that the said defect is a manufacturing defect and grievance for not provided after sales services to the complainant shall only be addressed by the manufacturer i.e. OP no.3 and the service centre i.e. OP no.4. Therefore, the relief prayed for by the complainant against the answering OP are wholly unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law and OP is not liable for refund of cost/replacement of the product or pay any compensation to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 filed its written version and raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits it is pleaded that laptop in question is manufactured by HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., hence the written version is filed on behalf of HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Complainant purchased the laptop on 19.10.2020 which is alleged to be defective had been used till the first case lodged on 17.03.2021, the said facts proves that the laptop was working perfectly fine and there are no manufacturing defects as otherwise it would have started posing issues from the day of purchase. The laptop in question had one year base warranty from the date of purchase as on date the laptop is out of the warranty period. On verification of the data base maintained by the company based on the serial number of the laptop for the calls/complaints lodged to the customer care centre of the OP. On 17.03.2021, complainant vide case ID no.5063120077 had reported for white spots on display issue, on receipt of the complaint, the service team of the OP  had submitted the laptop for diagnosis, on inspection, learnt that the issues reported were caused due to the damage caused to the laptop and same is not covered under the HP standard warranty, hence initially the service team of the OP had offered to resolve the issue on chargeable basis, however subsequently treating the complainant’s case exception one had replaced the display panel and resolved the issue as per the terms of the warranty. The complainant had reported different issues in the laptop during different time intervals, as and when the complainant had reported the issues the service team of the OP attended to the complainants promptly and as the issues reported were covered under the warranty, the same were resolved by replacing the parts free of costs, post repair the laptop was kept under observation and on confirmation that the laptop is working fine as per specifications had delivered the laptop. For the issues reported after the warranty period the service team have offered to resolve the issues on chargeable basis as per warranty obligations but complainant has refused the same and demanding for the refund of the costs of the laptop despite educating the complainant for the refund of the costs of the laptop is neither permissible nor feasible as per warranty. The complaint filed by the complainant is prima facie unsustainable and therefore the question of granting any relief whatsoever to the complainant does not arise. It is further pleaded that complainant has filed this baseless and frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the laptop in question without having produced any expert opinion in the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the subject monitor suffers from the problem as alleged, or to establish any defect in the laptop in question. It is further pleaded that complainant purchased the laptop on 19.10.2020 which is alleged to be defective had been used till the first case lodged on 17.03.2021, the said facts proves that the laptop was working perfectly fine and there are no manufacturing defects in the laptop. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.4 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 19.04.2022 of the Commission.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill invoice Ex.C1, online invoice Ex.C2, copies of emails dated 11.01.2021, 11,01.2021, 14.01.2021, 15.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 18.03.2021, 17.03.2021, 17.03.2021, 16.03.2021, 14.04.2021, 07.08.2021, 18.08.2021, 21.08.2021, 24.08.2021, 03.09.2021, 01.10.2021, 05.10.2021, 26.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 08.11.2021, 09.11.2021, 29.11.2021 Ex.C3 to Ex.C24, copy of whatsapp chat with customer care Ex.C25 to Ex.C28 and closed the evidence on 27.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, on 26.07.2023 learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 has suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of OPs no.1 and 2 be read as part and parcel of evidence of the OPs no.1 and 2.

9.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Girish Ex.OP3/A, board resolution Ex.OP3/1, service call reports Ex.OP3/2A to Ex.OP2D, copy of email dated 22.03.2022 Ex.OP3, copy of HP Hardware Limited Warranty Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 26.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased a gaming Laptop from the OP no.1. After sometimes of its purchase, it created problems like wifi disconnection, Bluetooth error, screen freezing problems. The complainant requested the OPs several occasions from 11.01.2021 to 08.102.2021 for rectification of the defects but OPs failed to so and lastly replaced the wifi card and charger of said laptop but not able to fix the screen flickering and laptop auto shutdown issues.  The said laptop was/is having manufacturing defect. Complainant requested the OPs several times to replace the said laptop or to refund the cost of the laptop to the complainant but OPs did not do so and prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1 and 2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant is with regard to the alleged defects in the product provided by the seller or manufacturer. The role of the OP no.1 is an intermediary only, that is, to provide an online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its flipkart platform and the concerned contract(s) of sale and purchase is between the seller, manufacturer and the buyer only. The liability of refund/replacement of the product is with the seller or manufacturer and not with the OP. He further argued that complainant himself admitted that there is manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. So, manufacturer or service centre are liable to redress the grievance of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OPs no.1 and 2.

13.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant made a complaint for white spots on display. OP had replaced the display panel and resolved the issue as per the terms of the warranty. He further argued that the allegations of complainant in respect of defects in laptop, in the absence of any expert report, miserably fails to prove on record any manufacturing defect in the laptop in question and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.         

14.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

15.           Admittedly, on 19.10.2020, the complainant purchased a laptop amounting to Rs.48,890/- from the website of OP no.1. It is also admitted that OP had replaced only the display panel during warranty period. It is also admitted that defect occurred during the warranty period.

 16.          Complainant has alleged that on 19.10.2022, he purchased a gaming laptop from the site of OP no.1 for an amount Rs.48,890/-. The said laptop created problems like wifi disconnection, Bluetooth error, screen freezing problems during the warranty period.  The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version complainant has placed on file copy of bill invoice Ex.C1, online invoice Ex.C2, emails dated 11.01.2021, 11,01.2021, 14.01.2021, 15.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 18.03.2021, 17.03.2021, 17.03.2021, 16.03.2021, 14.04.2021, 07.08.2021, 18.08.2021, 21.08.2021, 24.08.2021, 03.09.2021, 01.10.2021, 05.10.2021, 26.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 08.11.2021, 09.11.2021, 29.11.2021 Ex.C3 to Ex.C24, copy of whatsapp chat with customer care Ex.C25 to Ex.C28. It has been proved from the said documents the laptop was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and complainant approached the OPs several times to rectify the defect during the warranty period. It is the duty of the OPs either to repair the laptop in question during warranty period or to replace the same but OPs did not do so. Thus, the act of the OP no.3 (being manufacturer) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

17.           During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant does not want to replace the product in question, he wants to refund the cost of the product.     

18.           As per the invoice Ex.C2, the complainant had purchased Laptop in question for an amount of Rs.48,890/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.3 (being manufacturer) to refund the amount of Rs.48,890/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to return the product in question to the OPs. The complaint qua OPs no.1, 2 and 4 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.07.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.      

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Sarvjeet Kaur)    

                     Member                   Member