Haryana

Ambala

CC/85/2017

Anshum Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Mittal

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.          :  85 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution          :  20.03.2017

                                                          Date of decision     :  26.04.2018

 

 

Anushum Garg son of Sh. Suresh Garg, resident of House no. 569, B.C.Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Banglore, Karnataka through  its Managing Director.

2.       YU Televentures Pvt Ltd Plot 21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-2, New Delhi-110028  through its Managing Director.

3.       Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No.435, Road No.4, Lal Dora Ext. Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 through its Managing Director.

4.       M/s Cell Point (HR), Opp. PNB Bank,Court Road, Ambala City, Haryana- 134003 through its Manager.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.               

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Puneet Mittal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Naresh Chawla, counsel for OP No.1.

OP Nos. 2 to 4 already ex parte 04.05.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant on 13.12.2016 placed an order with the OP No.1 of one Yu Yureka Plus mobile (White 16 GB) set worth Rs. 6500/- which has been manufactured by the OP No.2 vide order ID No.OD407849972307120000  and which has been delivered to the complainant  by the OP No.3 vide invoice dated 15.12.2016 bearing its IMEI No.911476104441357 & 911476105441356 for a consideration of Rs. 6500/-. The warranty of the mobile set in al respect is for full one year. Only after few days of its purchase, the above stated mobile hand set started creating trouble for the complainant  and there were problems as there was no cellular access and due to that the said mobile was not working. Thereafter on 14.01.2017 the set was given to OP No.4 for removing the above said defect and a job sheet dated 14.01.2017 was also given  to the complainant and said that the defect of the handset will be removed and it will take period of one month. But thereafter when the set was given back to the complainant on the assurance by the OP No.4 that now it will work properly, then the complainant was surprised to see that the same problem again arisen in the set. Ultimately, the complainant again visited the OP No.4 and asked him about the handset and then the OP No.4 told the complainant that the problem of the mobile set cannot been removed. Besides this, the OPs have also failed to replace the set despite being defective and thus also liable for deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, suppressed true and material facts. On merits, the counsel for OP No.1 stated that OP No.1 is neither a seller nor the manufacturer/producer/service centre of the product in this case. The product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by OP No.2 and sold by OP No.3, a third party seller registered on ‘Flipkart platform’ as is evident  from the Invoice. Counsel for the OP No.1 further stated that Op No.1 only provides an online platform where third party sellers sell their products and visitors/buyers purchase such products from the respective sellers on the website/app out of their own free will and choice. Also, any kind of warranty on the product is offered and provided by the manufactured of the product only. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-2 and close his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered his affidavit as Annexure R-A and close his evidence Op Nos. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex parte v.o.d.04.05.2017.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the complainant & OP No.1 and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that complainant on 13.12.2016 placed an order with the OP No.1 of one Yu Yureka Plus mobile(White 16GB) set worth  Rs. 6,500/- which has been manufactured by the OP No.2 vide order ID No.OD407849972307120000 and which has been delivered to the complainant  by the OP No.3 vide invoice dated 15.12.2016 bearing  IMEI no.911476104441357 & 911476105441356  with one year warranty as  Annexure C-1. After few days of purchase, the handset creating trouble as there was no cellular access and due to that the said mobile was not working.  Perusal of the job sheet i.e. Annexure C-2 shows that the mobile set having problem i.e. 4204-Y Cellular Access (GSM) no service and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done. Therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to get the same defect free of costs but they did not rectify the problem of mobile in question. The complainant visited service centre/OP No.4 but the grievance has not been redressed by the OP No.4.

The counsel for the OP No.1 has filed the written arguments and submitted that OP No.1 has not involved in the transaction except are accept  for providing the online platform for transaction(s) and the concerned contract(s) of sale and purchase is between the seller and the buyer (here complainant) only and so  OP No.1 shall  not be liable for any liability owing to such contract. He further argued that OP No.1 is a mere intermediary and only facilitates the selling of goods between the seller and buyer. Therefore, the Op No.1 cannot be held liable for the defect which is termed as manufacturing defect. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed against OP No.1.

 5.               In this way, the complainant has been able to prove his case as the Ops No. 2 to 4 have failed to provide service after selling the product in question which makes them deficient in service as per Consumer Protection Act. In the present case, the Op Nos. 2 to 4 despite registered notices not pursue the case and they were proceeded against ex-parte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant..

6.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against OPs No. 2 to 4 with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.6,500/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to returning the mobile in question to the Ops.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of cost of proceedings as assessed above.

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 26.04.2018

                    

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                          Member                                  President