4. Shreyash Retail Private Limited, 2nd floor, Plot NO. 82, Okhla Q Industrial Area, Phase-3, new Delhi – 110020.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Bhisham Narayan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had ordered a mobile handset of opposite party No.3 i.e. Apple iphone modal XR from the opposite party No.1 which was billed by opposite party NO.4 of Rs.45,999/- on dated 22.08.2020, vide invoice No.#FAAAOC2100745842 from the opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.4 with one year warranty and the complainant also purchased a complete mobile protection for one year from notice 2 of Rs.3799/- on 22.8.2020 vide invoice NO. #EAAAB-04465062. Since purchasing of the said mobile phone the mobile phone was stopped working and also not getting charging and other problems and in this regard the complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.2 on 23.11.2020 at about 03;33 PM by phone call, which was duly received and registered by opposite party No.2 by claim ID was CLP23112000222 and the complainant also received a revert mail form opposite party No.2, thereafter, the mobile handset was picked by Blue Dart Courier on 24.11.2020 vide docket NO. 69657123686 and same was received by the opposite party NO.2 on 25.11.2020 at about 11:10 am by the agent/employee of opposite party No.2 Mr. Sanjeev. On 07.12.2020 the complainant again makes a reminder mail to the opposite party No.2, then the opposite party No.2 sent a false mail in which the opposite party No.2 falsely wrote that (i) pack the complainant handset and be ready for pickup (ii) handover to courier partner, infect mobile handset was already picked by Blue Dart on 24.11.2020 at about 11:10AM. The complainant continue follow up by mail with the opposite party NO.2 on so many different dates on 12.12.2020 and on 14.12.2020 and on 15.12.2020 and 16.12.2020 and on 17.12.2020 and on 17.12.2020 and on 07.01.2021 and on 08.01.2021 and on 05.01.2021 the complainant again received a false mobile pick up handsome advice and after 08.01.2021 the opposite party No.2 did not reply and query. On 26.12.2020 the complainant makes a mail to Flipkart regarding refund of phone amount and continue follow up on 27.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 but not avail. After so many call on phone without giving any solution, the opposite party No.1 closed the complainant complaint without inform to the complainant on 0601.2020, thereafter the complainant again on 06.01.2021 made a call to the opposite party No1 for reopen the case vide incident NO. IN2101062034267295496 and the opposite party No.1 assured to the complainant for resolution on or before 18.01.2021 but on 07.01.2021 without giving any solution to the complainant the opposite party No.1 closed the case that after so many call case closed. On 08.01.2021 the complainant again makes a mail to Flipkart regarding reopen the case vide incident No. IN2101081300507831419 and the opposite party No.1 assured to the complainant for resolution on or before 15.01.2021 but no fruitful result came out. On 08.01.2021 the complainant made mail to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 for filing of consumer complaint against all the opposite parties, so due to non sought out of the said problems in respect of the mobile phone or not refund the purchasing amount of Rs.45,999/- and the mobile protection charges of 3799 to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) make the phone amount of Rs.45,999/- and mobile protection charges 3799/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant himself had admitted in the content of para 2 that complainant was purchased a complete mobile protection for one year from opposite party No.2 on Rs.3799/- on 22.08.2020 vide invoice NO. #EAAAB-04465062 which was purchased separately by the complainant it means there was no relation between complainant and the opposite party No.1 regarding any deficiency. It was submitted after using the said mobile for an about three month and he found some defect in the mobile then after the complainant was approached to the opposite party No.2 and registered his claim ( under claim ID No. CLPJ23112000222) and same mobile was pickup by blue dart and same was received by opposite party No.2 on 25.11.2020 by the agent/employee of opposite party No.2 which was admitted in the content of para No.3 for his grievance which was clearly show that the complainant was aware and full knowledge of the fact that the grievance of the complainant was only against the opposite arty No.2 i.e. Jeeves for not providing after sales service. It was most respectfully submitted that then grievance of the complainant should had been only against the jeeves (extend warranty provider) i.e. opposite prty No.2 or with manufacturer i.e opposite party No.3 for not providing after sale services to the customers. Further the complainant had not raised a single specific issue or grievance against the answering opposite party in the entire complaint even the complainant himself had admitted in the content of para Nos.5 & 6 that opposite party No.2 who had not be able to fulfill his obligation as per terms and conditions laid down in the extend warranty policy which was clearly show the opposite party No.2n was responsible or liable for any after sale issue regarding the same but not the answering opposite party. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the said mobile handset was stopped working and not getting charging problem and he purchased one year damage protection from Jeeves. It was submitted that the above statements made by the complainant were completely wrong, bearing not an iota of truth whatsoever and merely made to mislead the Ld. Forum. It was also submitted that the said product was under one year warranty of manufacturer and complainant should be approached the manufacturer or in authorized service center i.e opposite party No.3. Therefore, the answering opposite party was not maintainable or liable until the product had any accidental damage occurs by the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had purchased an iphone XR RED 64 GB-HIN bearing serial No. GV4ZT06YKXK3 from the opposite party No.1 on 22.08.2020. He also purchased a one year insurance protection on the said device from the opposite party No.2. he alleges that on 23.11.2020 his mobile was not charging properly and had other problems too, he then called the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had the mobile picked up and assured him that it would be repaired. After the said mobile was picked up the said mobile was not returned by opposite party No.2 and it allegedly made false claims of having sent the said mobile back. The complainant then sent a mail to opposite party No.1, seeking refund and there was no proper response. As he did not receive the refund or the proper solution to his issue from the opposite party No.1 & 2, he had filed the present complaint. The onus to prove allegations like on the complainant and hence the complainant might be directed to furnish and prove his allegations in relation to the complainant, particularly in view of the admission on the part of the complainant brought on record by the opposite party No3. In this case, which ex-facie squarely contradict the allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant was well aware that the present issue with his iphone was looked into by opposite party nos.1 & 2. The opposite party No.3 given a one year warranty on the said device and its terms and conditions were well known to the complainant. There was nowhere the opposite party No.3 was involved in the whole process as the complainant had not brought the said device to any of the Apple Authorised Service Provider to get his device checked. Without any such check, the opposite party No.3 was not liable for any of the warranty coverage to the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party No.4 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.4 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was clearly admitted in all the content of para’s that the grievance arising out of alleged defects was only against the opposite party No.2 i.e. Jeeves consumer services Pvt. Ltd., who did not resolve the defect occurring in the Apple Mobile. It means the complainant had been well knowledge regarding the grievance of the alleged product. It was submitted that the complainant purchased the extend warranty policy through Jeeves i.e. opposite party No.2 hence the answering opposite party had been no role/facilities to provide any extended warranty to the complainant. Then after the complainant was approached to the Jeeves i.e opposite party No.2 which was admitted in the content of para Nos.3,4 & 5 for his grievance, which was clearly show that the complainant was aware and full knowledge of the fact that the grievance of the complainant was only against the opposite party No.2 for not providing after sales service. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for by the complainant against the answering opposite party were wholly un reasonable and unsustainable in law and the answering opposite party was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. It was reiterated that answering opposite party was an online reseller registered on “Flipkart.com’. Answering opposite party was not the manufacturer but an online reseller and the products old by answering opposite party carry warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defects subject to the terms and conditions determined by the manufacturers only. Opposite party No. 4 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd. & Others with the prayer to: a) make the phone amount of Rs.45,999/- and mobile protection charges 3799/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sanjay Kumar,, Ex.C-1 – invoice dated 22.8.2020, Ex.C-2 – invoice dated 22.8.2020 for Rs.3799 for the purchase of a complete mobile complete protection 1 year, Ex.C-3 – email dated 23.11.2020, Ex.C-4 – SMS message,, Ex.C-5 – Shipment details, Ex. C-6 to C-14 – emails, Ex.C-15 – legal notice.
Counsel for opposite parties Nos.1,2 & 4 has made a statement that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1,2 & 4 be read as evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1,2 & 4. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1,2 & 4 have been closed vide order dated 11.7.2022.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.3 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.3 – Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Shambhu Karmakar, Aged Major, Contracts Manager, Authorized Signatory, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19th floor, Concorde Tower , UB City, NO.24, Vittal Mllya Road, Bengaluru, Ex. R-1 – letter of authorization.
9. In this case, the complainant had ordered a mobile handset of opposite party No.3 i.e. Apple iphone modal XR from the opposite party No.1 which was billed by opposite party NO.4 of Rs.45,999/- on dated 22.08.2020, vide invoice No.#FAAAOC2100745842 from the opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.4 with one year warranty and the complainant also purchased a complete mobile protection for one year from notice 2 of Rs.3799/- on 22.8.2020 vide invoice NO. #EAAAB-04465062. After purchase of the said mobile phone, the mobile phone was stopped working and also not getting charging and other problems. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as on emails ipso facto go to prove that the phone in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.45,999/- and mobile protection charges of Rs.3799/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Mobile phone in question is already lying with the opposite party. The opposite party No.1 also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment
alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 05.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
