Karnataka

Kolar

CC/79/2018

Sri.Chandrashekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.A.Raghupathi

30 May 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 26.10.2018

Date of Order: 30.05.2019

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 30^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 79 OF 2018

Sri. Chandrashekar.V,

S/o. Muniyappa,

Aged About 40 Years,

Kashipura Village,

Inorahahosahalli Post,

Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar.

PIN 563114.                                                  ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Raghupathi, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

1) Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.,

Vaishnavi Sumit, Ground Floor,

7^th Main, 80 feet Road, 3^rd Block,

Koramangala, Bangalore-560034.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)

 

2) Unicell Tele Communication Services,

Authorized Service Centre,

No.6, Ramadevaragudi Road,

Brahmin Street,

Near KSRTC Bus Stand,

Kolar-563101.

(Rep. by Sri. S.Divakar, Advocate)

 

3) Lenovo India Pvt Limited,

Ferns Icon, Level-2,

Doddenakund Village,

Marathhalli Outer Ring Road,

Marathhalli Post, K.R.Puram Hobli,

Bangalore-560 037.

(Exparte)                                                                   …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties and prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- for guilty of gross deficiency of service and causing mental agony and business loss and prays to replace the new Lenovo K6 Power (gold 32 GB) Box with warranty along with cost in the ends of justice.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, on 19.04.2017 the complainant has purchased a mobile Lenovo K6 Power (gold 32GB) for Rs.8,999/- from OP No.1 with a propound hopes of latest facility and also with latest technology.  The OP No.1 is the company for selling the mobiles and other things and OP No.2 is the service centre at Kolar and the OP No.3 is the manufacturer branch office.  After purchase of the said mobile the complainant was in use for his own, but on surprise, the said new mobile was heating-up very badly and used to switch-off immediately due to which the complainant sustained lot of problems.  The complainant contacted OP No.2 and upraised the problem facing in the new mobile.  OP No.2 took the mobile and the complainant explained about the major problems of the said mobile.  After 04 days, the OP No.2 contacted the complainant through his phone and said that, the mobile had fell in the water only to escape from the liability and OP No.2 has cheated the complainant by telling the narrated story.  The complainant sent so many mails to OPs and he also produced the same.  The complainant caused lot of inconvenience, tension and mental agony on the several phone calls and visiting the office of the OPs.  On 03.08.2017 the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs and they failed to give reply and he has also produced the said legal notice.  The OPs colluded with each other and have not rendered good service or repair of the said mobile in spite of giving notice.  So contending, the complainant prays to allow the complaint in the ends of justice.

03.   The complainant has submitted following 03 documents along with his complaint:-

(i) Copy of the mobile bill

(ii) Copy of the mails sent by the complainant

(iii) Copy of the legal notice & postal receipts & acknowledgment.

 04.  In response to the notice OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and OP No.3 placed exparte.  OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed their version separately.

05.   OP No.1 has filed version and denied all the allegations, contentions, submissions and statements of complaint and which are inconsistent.  The complainant has suppressed true facts and narrated cocked up story of sufferings.  The OP No.1 is a company engaged in providing trading/selling facility over the internet through its website and mobile application as Flipkart Platform and it provides on-line marketing place to sellers and buyers of the products to facilitate the transaction, electronic commerce for various goods and enable them to deal in various categories of goods like mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances and electronics, etc.,.  This OP No.1 is not a seller of any product.  The OP No.1 has narrated the provision Under Section 2(1)(w) and Section 79 protected by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.  The complainant has wrongly arrived this OP No.1 to the case and he acts as only intermediately through its web interface and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users of the Flipkart Platform.  This OP No.1 does not directly or indirectly sells any products on Flipkart Platform.  This OP No.1 cannot provide any assurance, warranty on the product and it is only provided by the manufacturer of the goods sold at Flipkart platform.  The OP No.1 is not involved in the said transaction and it is between the seller and the borrower only and the OP No.1 is not liable for any liability.  The OP No.1 is not involved in any unfair trade practice.  The complainant has purchased the product from one of the sellers as per the invoice and neither the seller nor the manufacturer were made as a party and the complaint is non-joinder of necessary parties for adjudication of the dispute.  The grievance of the complainant is between the manufacturer of the product and the authorized service center and there is no any cause of action against this OP No.1 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP.  The OP No.1 has no knowledge about the defects of the product and denied the averments made in the complaint as false, frivolous and baseless and the complaint is not sustainable and there is no any harassment/inconvenience as alleged by the complainant.  The OP No.1 has filed Xerox copy of Flipkart Terms as per Annexure-1 and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

06.   OP No.2 has filed its version and contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.  This OP admitted Para-3 with respect to status of the OPs and denied Para-4 with respect to purchase of alleged mobile with OP No.1 and the same was given trouble and he is facing lot of problem which not within his knowledge and put the complainant to prove the same.  And so also denied para-6 that, the complainant contacted OP No.2 and narrated the problem of the mobile are observed to be false and untenable and put the complainant to prove the same.  And so also denied the Para-7 of the affidavit that, after four days, the OP No.2 contacted the complainant and said that, the said mobile was fall in water to escape the liability and to earn unlawful gain are also denied as baseless and untenable and put the complainant to prove the same.  The OP No.2 has specifically contended that, after receiving mobile phone from the complainant and created job-sheet and ELS (Entry Level Screening) was done and after due inspection OP No.2 found that, the mobile phone was liquid damage and the same was informed to the complainant and liquid damages will not be covered under warranty and service will be done only on payment basis, for which the complainant refused and forced the OP No.2 to repair or replace the mobile phone at free of cost.  The complainant before giving mobile phone for service to OP No.2 has been to HCL Bangalore Service Center and handed the mobile phone for service on 18.05.2017 under Service Order No. SOINO230031705180034 and the said service center has returned the mobile to the complainant as Un-serviced due to liquid damages and refused to repair the same covered under warranty.  The complainant has not disclosed the said facts by intentionally to defraud and to harass OP No.2 and made false and baseless allegations. The allegations of para-8 of the complaint that, the complainant caused lot of inconvenience, tension and agony apart from making several phone calls and visiting office of the OPs are all false, frivolous and untenable.  The allegation made by the complainant that he got issued legal notice dated: 03.08.2017 is baseless.  The question of replacement of mobile phone will not arise.  The allegation that, notice has been served to OP No.2 and failed to give reply due to lack of caution is absolutely baseless and so also denied para-9 and Para-10 as absolutely false, baseless and untenable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

07.   The complainant has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and produced Customer Information Slip dated: 30.12.2017.  One Ms. Mehek Sharma, filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP No.1.  The proprietor of Unicell Tele Communication Services has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP No.2 and produced list with 02 documents i.e., terms and conditions of Manufacturers Limited Warranty published by Motorola/Lenovo and Service Order details.

08.   The complainant and OP No.1 have filed their written arguments respectively.  Heard arguments of complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2.

09.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Whether the complainant has made out deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

(3) What order?

 

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      In the Negative

       

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

11.   POINTS (1) & (2):-

These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and documents produced by both complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2.  The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- for guilty of gross deficiency of service and causing mental agony and business loss and to replace the new Lenovo K6 Power (gold 32 GB) Box with warranty along with cost.  In this case on 19.04.2017 the complainant has purchased Lenovo K6 Power (gold 32 GB) mobile with the hope of latest technology and facility from OP at the cost of Rs.8,999/- through online booking.  The complainant has produced document to that effect i.e., the copy of tax invoice dated: 20.04.2017, copy of mails sent by the complainant, copy of customer information slip dated: 20.05.2017 and original customer information slip dated: 30.12.2017.  The complainant using the said mobile and found over-heating and used to switch-off immediately and he faced lot of problems in the said mobile.  The complainant approached OP No.2 and narrated the problem facing in the alleged mobile and after four days, OP No.2 contacted through phone and told that, the said alleged mobile was fallen in the water, to escape from the liability and to earn wrongful gain and cheated the complainant.  But OP No.2 has specifically denied the said allegations as false and baseless.

12.   OP No.2 has specifically contended that, after receiving the alleged mobile phone OP No.2 created job-sheet and Entry Level Screening was done and on due inspection, he found that, the mobile was liquid damage and the same was informed to the complainant that, liquid damage is not covered under the warranty and service will be done only on payment basis.  For which the complainant refused and forced the OP No.2 to repair or to replace the mobile phone at free of cost.  OP No.2 further contended that, before giving the alleged mobile for service with OP No.2, the complainant had been to HCL, Bangalore, service center on 18.05.2017, under service order No. SOIN0230031705180034 and the said Service Center has returned the mobile to the complainant as un-serviced stating un-repaired due to liquid damages and refused to repair the same under warranty.  To support these facts the OP No.2 has produced copy of terms and conditions of services, Manufacturer’s Limited Warranty (MLW) and at Clause-6, it reveals that, liquid damages were excluded from the benefits of MLW and so also produced copy of service order details dated: 18.05.2017 issued by Unicell Telecommunication Services, Kolar, and the said document reveals about the return of the alleged mobile of the complainant No.SOINO230031705180034 as un-repaired due to liquid damages.  The Service note of the said document reveals that, the alleged mobile fallen in to water and the said service order details also reveals that, the said alleged mobile found in liquid lock in full device.  The said document and tax invoice dated: 20.04.2017 are tallying with each other with respect to the alleged mobile of the complainant which was liquid damage.  The complainant has not objected the said documents.

13.   On perusal of the above said facts and documents produced by the OP No.2 it clearly goes to show that, the complainant has suppressed the material facts and dragged the OPs to the litigation without their fault and approached the Forum only with an intention to gain wrongfully and the entire contention of the complainant that, the OPs have colluded and cheated him and not rendered good service or repair the alleged mobile and the act of the OPs are negligent and the complainant was facing lot of problems and there was deficiency in service and he is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- are all goes in vain and are not acceptable in view of the above said discussions.  Hence as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him.  OP No.1 is a company engaged in providing trading/selling facility over internet through its website and provided online marketing place (platform) to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions of various goods like mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes footwear, healthcare etc., and is only a formal party to the proceedings.  The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against OPs to get wrongful gain.  Hence under these circumstances as discussed above, we answer point Nos.1 & 2 are in the negative.

14.   POINT (3):-

In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed on cost of Rs.2,000/- each to OP No.1 and OP No.2.  The complainant is directed to pay the said amount within 30 days failing which, the said amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization of the said order.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF MAY 2019)

 

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                            PRESIDENT