BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 3 of 2017
Date of Institution : 3.1.2017
Date of Decision : 23.8.2017.
Mehul Grover aged about 17 years son of Shri Anil Kumar (minor) through his mother, natural guardian and next friend Smt. Parveen Grover wife of Shri Anil Kumar, resident of Opposite Bhagat Singh Park, Near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park, 56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Banglore- 560068, through its M.D./ Director/ Authorized person.
2. WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd., 42/1 & 43, Kacherakanhalli village Jadigenhal Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnatka- 560067 through its M.D./ Authorized person/ owner.
3. M/s Lamboria Traders, 9-B, Additional Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Local Authorized Dealer of MI.Com.) through its owner/incharge/ authorized person.
4. HCL Service Ltd., Ground Floor, H.No. 164-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 (Authorized Service Centre) through its Incharge/ owner/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 exparte.
Sh. Pankaj Singal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant being minor has filed the present complaint through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Parveen Grover.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that opposite party no.1 is engaged in the business of online shopping and through media as well as advertisement claimed that they are selling genuine and original articles on lowest prices and also claimed to provide the services on door on payment. It is further averred that being impressed with the allurement of the op no.1, the complainant ordered a new mobile Redmi2-FDD-IN-enhanced-white from op no.2 through op no.1 for a sum of Rs.6499/-. The order was placed online and payment was also made in cash at Sirsa on delivery of the mobile vide bill/ invoice No.wild20151001322691 dated 25.10.2015. One year warranty of the mobile in question was also provided by the ops. The complainant used the said mobile for some time and therefore, he found defect in the mobile set as black screen used to appear at the time of recording or taking snap. Hence, he approached to op no.1 telephonically as well as op no.3 personally and made them aware about the fault in the mobile, who asked the complainant to approach op no.4 who is authorized service centre of the Redmi company. After due inspection, the incharge as well as technician of op no.4 got deposited the set from complainant and kept the same for a period of more than a month and during this period the complainant visited at Delhi on their service centre for 3-4 times and thereafter the service centre turned the mobile set after repairing the same vide job sheet dated 3.6.2016. As per the job sheet original EMIE of the said mobile has been changed and new EMEI originated number was 866392023490489. However, the complainant was not aware of this fact as he had received his set in working condition but after sometime, the same again started troubling and there were various faults regarding camera, speaker, mash fault and receiver etc. The complainant time and again approached to the ops No.1 to 3 and asked them either to remove the faults permanently or to get the said set replaced with fresh one. But the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and at last on 16.9.2016, they again asked the complainant to approach op no.4. It is further averred that under the compelling circumstances, the complainant again visited the office of op no.4 at Delhi and got deposited his set with the above said faults and also asked them to either replace the set with new one or to refund price of the same alongwith interest and thereafter he made several rounds to op no.4 and ultimately on 22.10.2016 the op no.4 raised his hands and refused to provide any help to the complainant in this regard and returned the handset without repair vide job sheet dated 17.9.2016. It is also pertinent to mention here that op no.4 again changed the EMEI number meaning thereby in both the job sheets it was admitted by the ops that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set due to which the ops are changing the motherboard and other parts of the mobile set due to which EMEI number was also changed. It is further averred that complainant requested the ops to refund the price of the mobile to him but the ops kept on avoiding the matter on one pretext or the other and finally about a week ago, the ops have flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, none appeared on bebalf of opposite parties No.1,2 and 4 and they were proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of true and material facts; no consumer dispute; estoppal and mis joinder and non joinder of parties. On merits, it is submitted that manufacturing company is providing time to time services to the customers and they also advised to the customers to get their complaint redressed from the authorized service centre. Complainant never approached to the answering op. Moreover, company is selling the alleged model of mobile set online through their vendors i.e. online shopping sites. Hence, the question to approach the answering op does not arise. The answering op not supplied the set and is also not a authorized dealer for the product mentioned in the complaint. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
5. The complainant produced affidavit of Smt. Parveen Grover Ex.C1, copy of invoice/ bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 3.6.2016 Ex.C3 and copy of job sheet dated 17.9.2016 Ex.C4. Learned counsel for op no.3 made a separate statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.3 be read as evidence on behalf of op no.3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from opposite party no.2 on 25.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.6499/- through online services of opposite party no.1 and received the mobile set in question at Sirsa and also made payment in cash at Sirsa after delivery of the mobile in question as is evident from copy of invoice/ bill dated 25.10.2015. It is also proved through copies of job sheets dated 3.6.2016 and 17.9.2016 that defects as pointed out by the complainant above occurred in the mobile set in question during warranty period of one year and both the times IMEI numbers were changed and the complainant has to visit Delhi at the service centre of the company for several times for redressal of his grievance. It proved on record that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set due to which the ops changed the motherboard and other parts of the mobile set due to which EIME number was also changed and ultimately the mobile set in question was returned by op no.4 without any repair. The op no.1 being online service provider, op no.2 from whom the mobile was purchased and op no.4 being authorized service centre of the company are therefore, liable to refund the cost of the mobile in question to the complainant. However, no liability of any kind of op no.3 is made out.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua ops No.1,2 and 4 and direct them to refund an amount of Rs.6499/- i.e. cost of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from ops No.1,2 and 4 from the date of order till actual payment. The ops No.1,2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.8.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
