Haryana

Ambala

CC/343/2017

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 343 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 09.10.2017

                                                          Date of decision    : 27.08.2018

 

 

 Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Risal Singh, resident of House No.209, Ward No.2, Durga Colony, Naraingarh District Ambala, Haryana – 134203, aged  about  40 years.

    ……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Flipkart  Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Loramangala, Bengaluru-560034, Karnataka.

2.  Samsung, Head Office Samsung Electronic Pvt Ltd, 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-V, Gurugram-Haryana – 122202.

3.  Jindal Agency, Main Bazar, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

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

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                  

         

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

Sh. Himanshu, counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant  purchased a mobile phone Samsung (Galaxy On8) Model No.SM_J710FN, as per modern technology of Internet and the representative of the OP No.1 delivered the phone to the complainant  at his address mentioned in the  complaint. The mobile phone is within one year of warranty period. The mobile phone was delivered on 08.11.2016 and the complainant  paid Rs. 15,900/-. From the very beginning, the mobile phone  is not working smoothly. The complainant reported the matter to the OP Nos. 1 & 2. On the advised of the OP No.2, the complainant reported the matter to the OP No.3 in Naraingarh during the month of December, 2016. After  delaying the matter for many months, the OP No.3 flatly refused to correct the defect  and they gave a letter to this effect on 28.09.2017. The mobile is bend from both the sides and thus he is not functioning smoothly. Due to the deficiency of service of the Ops, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that OP No.1 is neither a seller nor the manufacturer/producer/service centre of the Product in this case. The produce purchased by the complainant was manufactured by OP No.2 and sold by an independent third party seller registered on ‘Flipkart platform’. It is 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. Any kind of warranty/guarantee on the product is provided by the manufactured only.

Upon notice, OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant in regards to his complaint  has approached to the OP Nos. 2 & 3  on 29.06.2017 vide call no. 4239691352 and reported handset  twisted problem  in his unit. The engineer of the company thoroughly  checked the  unit and  found  the unit was damaged/twisted  due to mishandling/negligence on part of the complainant. The engineer of service center told to complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as company provides a warranty of one year from the date of purchase of unit and warranty is subject to some conditions and one of the conditions is that if the unit got damaged due to mishandling, the warranty becomes void and in the case of complainant unit got damaged due negligence/mishandling on part of complainant  and accordingly gave the estimate of repair but the complainant did not approve the estimate and stared demanding free of cost  repair/replacement for his unit.  After that the complainant never contacted to the OP Nos. 2 & 3. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-2 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP Nos.2 & 3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-9 and close their evidence.  Counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file

5.                The case of complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung (Galaxy On8) Model No. SM_J710FN, through deliver by Flipkart online vide invoice No.ID-OD307511424069216000 dated 06.11.2016 for a sum of Rs. 15900/- along with one year warranty as Annexure C-1. It is proved on the file that the mobile in question has become defective within warranty period as per Job sheet Annexure R-2 which shows that “Handset Twisted Problem”. The complainant approached to the OP No.2 & 3 for rectification of the mobile in question they have gave the estimate of Rs. 3,465/- for repairing charges of the defective parts but complainant refused to get the same repaired on payment basis. The OP No.1 has alleged that the mobile in question has become defective due to the mishandling of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions as under:-  “in case of any damage to the product/misuse  detected by the authorized  service center personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable  and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on chargeable basis only”.

6.                During the course of the arguments complainant suffered a statement that he is ready to pay  the estimate amount Rs. 3465/- as per the Annexure R-8 to the Op Nos.2 & 3 and his phone be rectified in working condition.

7.                In view of the above statement of the complainant, it is appropriate to give the direction to the OP Nos. 2 & 3 to rectify the defects of the mobile in question and make it in a working condition after receiving the amount of Rs. 3,465/-  from the complainant within 15 days from the date of receiving  the copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :27.08.2018    

                  

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                     President