Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/53/2017

Babu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/53/2017
Date of Institution	:	18/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	28/11/2017

 

Babu Ram son of Sh. Lal Chand, HARCO Bank, SCO 78-80, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18 and 55/09, 7^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068 (Karnataka), India through its Manager.

2.     Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd., No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanhalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560067, India through its Manager.

3.     Mi Authorised Service Centre, SCO 2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Hitender.

4.     Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Delta Block, Embassy Tech Square, Kadubee Sanahalli, Marathahalli, Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560103, India through its Managing Director. 

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for OP-1, as proxy counsel for Sh. Vikram Vir Sharda, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for OP-4, as proxy counsel for Sh. Parshant Sethi, Counsel for OP-3

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 15.9.2016, the complainant placed an online order with OP-1 for the purchase of a Redmi 3S mobile handset which was delivered by OP-2 and a sum of Rs.6,999/- was paid by him in the shape of cash on delivery.  However, two months after purchase, the said handset started giving problem of hanging, also display and touch screen was not working well. The complainant immediately approached the customer care which gave the address of OP-3. The complainant visited OP-3 on 5.1.2017 who took the mobile set and assured to return the same within 7 days after rectifying the defects. But, on the same day, OP-3 called the complainant through SMS and accordingly he visited OP-3 upon which he was told that the liquid of phone had actually been damaged and asked him to pay Rs.5,100/-, though the same was under warranty. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the customer care through email dated 6.1.2017 and also contacted OP-4 through various emails and asked for replacement with a new one, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has averred that the product in question was supplied in good working condition and there was no fault in the mobile set. It has been stated that the grievance of the complainant relates to after sales service and, therefore, he rightly approached the authorised service centre of the manufacturer. The liability to provide after sale services does not lay upon OP-1 as it is neither the manufacturer nor its authorised service centre nor the seller of the product.  OP-1 has denied most of the allegations for want of knowledge, being related to OPs 3 & 4.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its separate written reply has also denied most of the allegations, being related to OPs 3 & 4. It has been admitted that the product in question was purchased through it and the same carried one year manufacturer’s warranty subject to terms and conditions. It has been stated that the product in question, when supplied, was in good working condition and there was no fault in the same and it was only on 5.1.2017 that the complainant registered some complaint with OP-3.
4.         OP-3 in its separate written reply has averred that though the handset was under warranty period, but, as the problem occurred due to liquid damage, therefore, the same was not covered under the warranty terms and repairing amount of Rs.5,025.79 was demanded by it. The complainant was telephonically requested several times and requested to pick up the handset, but, he showed no interest as he wanted OP-3 to repair the handset free of cost. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         OP-4 in its separate written reply has admitted the facts regarding purchase of the product in question and the visit of the complainant to OP-3 on 5.1.2017. It has been averred that after examining the product for defects, it was ascertained that the same had suffered liquid damage. OP-3 duly informed the complainant about the liquid damage in the product and also requested him to pay repair costs since any kind of customer induced damage (such as exposure to water in the present case) was not covered under the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product, but, he failed to pay the same.  The complainant has also failed to provide any evidence to prove or demonstrate any manufacturing defect in the product. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
8.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of the retail invoice, that the complainant purchased one VX46247 mobile handset for Rs.6,999/- from OP-2 through OP-1. The sole grouse of the complainant is that vide Annexure C-2, the service order, the handset in question, when got defective, was handed over to OP-3 for necessary repairs on 5.1.2017 i.e. within three months of the purchase of the handset in question.  As per the case of the complainant, OP-3 told him that the handset is damaged due to liquid insertion and asked him to pay Rs.5,100/-, even though the same was under warranty. The complainant contacted OP-4 as well through email with a request for replacement of the handset in question, but, till date, his request has not been acceded to by the OPs.
9.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that the product in question was supplied in good working condition to the complainant and there was no fault in the same, therefore, it, being neither the manufacturer nor the service provider nor even the seller of the product, cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
10.         On similar ground, OP-2 has also contended that the product was carrying one year warranty and the same was supplied to the complainant in good working condition and it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service.
11.         OPs 3 & 4 in their written reply have admitted the purchase of the handset in question and visit of the complainant to OP-3 on 5.1.2017. OPs 3 & 4 have contended that the product in question suffered liquid damage and hence the same could not be repaired under warranty. OP-3 has alleged that the complainant was telephonically requested several times to pick up the handset, but, it was the complainant only who chose not to collect the same from it. 
12.         After going through the evidence on record and the written statement of the OPs, the fact of purchase and the defective handset in question in the custody of OP-3 are admitted. So far as the question of intimating the complainant to collect the handset from it is concerned, there is no concrete evidence or proof in the form of some SMS or email etc. whereby the complainant was informed to collect the handset. Both OPs 3 & 4 have contended that the handset in question was liquid damaged, but, to prove the same, there is no evidence on record.  Hence, in the absence of any report/evidence, it cannot be proved that the handset in question was actually liquid damaged. 
13.         So far as the question of liability of OPs 1 & 2 is concerned, admittedly the handset in question was collected by the complainant in good working condition and it was the liability of OPs 3 & 4 only i.e. the service centre and the manufacturer to get the handset repaired under warranty or to place on record any evidence to prove that the handset was liquid damaged.  Hence, the act of OPs 3 & 4 for non-repairing the handset in question under warranty and keeping the same in their custody and non-returning to the complainant proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
14.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs 3 & 4 only and they are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.6,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase, till realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

15.         This order be complied with by OPs 3 & 4 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
16.         The consumer complaint qua OPs 1 & 2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
17.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member