Order No. 12 dt. 22/02/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Lenovo smart phone at a price of Rs.6490/- from o.p. no.1. The hand set was not supporting with 3G enabled network. But the network service provider Airtel informed the complainant that the said product is not 3G enabled but the SIM which is used by the complainant is 3G enabled. The complainant after noticing some problems informed the o.p. no.1 who replied that they would resolve the issue on or before 18.11.04 and on that date the o.p. no.1 advised the complainant to visit the authorized service centre of the manufacturer to resolve the problem as the seller replacement policy of 10 days from the date of delivery is over as the mobile set had the manufacturing defect. The complainant accordingly contacted the o.p. no.3 who confirmed the problem and changed the mother board. In spite of changing the mother board no improvement was found and again the complainant contacted the o.p. no.3 who informed him that the complainant can keep the mobile with the o.p. no.3 and whenever the mother board will be available the same would be provided to the complainant. On the next date on 10.12.14 the mother board was replaced but several problems cropped up and brought to the notice of o.p. no.3 and again the complainant was informed that the board is required to be changed. The complainant thereafter sent an e-mail to o.p. no.2 but did not get any response. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund an amount of Rs.6490/- with compensation.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. no.1 provides online market place / platform to the sellers and also to buyers to facilitated and easy availability of products to the buyer and a new arena for the sellers to sell out their products. As such o.p. no.1 has no liability and responsibility to the extent of quality of product only the manufacturers are solely concerned of the product quality. The manufacturer of the said product was Lenovo, therefore there was privity of contract between the complainant and o.p. no.2. Accordingly it was stated by o.p. no.1 that there was no deficiency of service on the part of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.1 is not responsible for the product and as such, no order is to be passed against the o.p. no.1.
In spite of receipt of notices the o.p. nos.2 and 3 did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the product through online from o.p. no.1
- Whether the product had any manufacturing defect.
- Whether the complainant brought it to the notice of o.p. no.2.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one Lenovo mobile set at a price of Rs.6490/- and the said purchased was made through online from o.p. no.1. Immediately after purchase of the said product the complainant found that the mobile set was not functioning properly. Whenever the complainant brought it to the notice of o.p. no.1 the o.p. no.1 promptly answered to the complainant that in case of defect of any product purchased online the same may be replaced by the manufacturer of the product. After getting such information and the name of service centre of manufacturing company the complainant contacted the o.p. no.3 who after examining the mobile set advised the complainant that the mother board is to be replaced. Accordingly, the mobile set was handed over to o.p. no.3 and the mother board was replaced but no improvement was noticed. Again the complainant informed the o.p. no.3 and he was advised that further replacement of mother board is required. The complainant being disgusted informed the said fact to o.p. no.2 but no action was taken for which the complainant had to file this case praying for refund of the value of the said mobile along with other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that o.p. no.1 acts as the supplier of the product in case of online purchase and there is no relationship between the seller and buyer, only duty of o.p. no.1 that in case of booking of any product through online the product is supplied to the purchaser. The guaranty of the product lies on the manufacturer. Whenever the complainant brought to the notice of the defect of the product the o.p. no.1 provided the name of the service centre of the company to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1. Thereby o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted that the complainant purchased a mobile set through online from o.p. no.1. In order to prove the said purchase the complainant filed the documents. It is also an admitted fact that the mobile had some defects and after detection of the defect the complainant brought it to the notice of o.p. no.1 who provided the address of the service centre of the manufacturer of the said product. The complainant accordingly made contact with o.p. no.3 who replaced the mother board of the said mobile set, but problems remained same. Again the complainant made contact with o.p. no.3 and he was asked that the mother board was to be changed again and accordingly it was handed over, but the problem was not resolved. Being frustrated, the complainant made contact with o.p. no.2 the manufacturer of the mobile set but no action was taken. From the materials on record it appears that the o.p. nos.1 and 3 being the supplier of the product and the service centre had no direct role regarding the manufacturing defect of the said mobile set. The o.p. no.2 being the manufacturer of the said mobile set was solely responsible for the defect of the said mobile set. Since the o.p. no.2 did not contest the case therefore we are not in a position to know the details of the defect in the said mobile phone. Accordingly we hold that there was manufacturing defect of the said product for which the o.p. no.2 avoided to appear before this Forum and to contest the case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, since o.p. no.2 being the manufacturer of the mobile set was responsible for the loss sustained by the complainant, therefore o.p. no.2 must return the value of the defective mobile set and complainant will also be entitled to get compensation and litigation cost from o.p. no.2. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.431/2015 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.2 and dismissed without cost against the other o.ps. The o.p. no.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.6490/- (Rupees six thousand four hundred ninety) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
