Punjab

Sangrur

CC/191/2020

Bachan Dev - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Amit Aggarwal

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 191

 Instituted on:   20.07.2020

                                                                         Decided on:     22.07.2022

 

Bachan Dev son of Sh. Lakha Ram, resident of Colony Road, Ward No.13, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Block-B (Begonia), Ground Floor, Embassy Tec Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahall Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District Karnataka 560103.

2.             HP India Sales Private Limited, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore 560030 through its Managing Director.

3.             Joshi Enterprises 230 MG Road, Camp, Pune 411001 through its Proprietor.

             ….Opposite parties 

For the complainant:             :Shri  Amit Aggarwal,Adv.              

For the OP No.1                  :Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For the OP No.2                  :Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For the OP No.3.                  :Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                 Sarita Garg, Member   

 

                                                                     FINAL ORDER

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant  placed an order of one LAPTOP of HP company with the OP number 1 on 26.2.2020 which was delivered to the complainant on 2.3.2020 vide invoice bearing number FABBA32000001154 dated 26.2.2020 for Rs.27,870/-, as such the complainant paid the said amount to the OP number 1.  It is further averred that the laptop in question was having one year warranty.  Further case of complainant is that on the next date i.e. 3.3.2020, when the complainant started the laptop, he got stunned as it was not working properly and the processor of the laptop was slow.  The complainant immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of OP number 2 who is the manufacturer of the laptop. The OP number 2 tried to remove the defects through online process, but nothing could be done. As such, the complainant requested the Ops to refund the amount of the price of the laptop. Though the request of the complainant was approved, but the laptop was not taken back by the OPs.  Further case of complainant is that on 9.4.2020 the complainant again received message from the OP number 1 seeking sorry for not resolving the problem of complainant due to nationwide lockdown.  Further case of the complainant is that though he again received message from the OP number 1 for refund of the amount of Rs.27,870/- but the same was not refunded. The complainant again approached the OPs so many times for refund of the amount of the cost of Laptop, but nothing was made.  Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.27,870/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.33,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission, that the whole grievance of the complainant pertains to the defective product. It is stated further that the fact needs to be recorded here is that the product was purchased from the third party seller who had sold the product to the complainant through the third party logistic service product. It is further stated that the business of the OP number 1 falls within the definition of an ‘intermediary’ under section 2(1)(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. On merit,  It is submitted that OP number 1 merely operates an online platform and all the products on the platform are sold and supplied by the independent third party seller.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.  Some preliminary objections are taken on the ground that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable, that the complaint is vague, that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute, that the laptop purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant had purchased the laptop after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. It is stated further that the laptop in question is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same depends upon various facts such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and the software installed on the system.  Any misleading of the system or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the laptop vide invoice number FABBA32000001154 dated 2.3.2020 for Rs.27,870/- and further admitted that it bears a warranty of one year.  The OP number 2 has denied any of the defect in the laptop in question.  It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question and other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.  

4.             Record shows that OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte.

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that that the complainant  placed an order of one LAPTOP of HP company with the OP number 1 on 26.2.2020 which was delivered to the complainant on 2.3.2020 vide invoice bearing number FABBA32000001154 dated 26.2.2020 for Rs.27,870/-, copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  The learned counsel for complainant has further contended that the laptop in question was having one year warranty.  Further learned counsel for complainant has argued that on the very next day i.e. on 3.3.2020, when the complainant opened and started the laptop in question, he got astonished as it was not working properly and the processor of the laptop was slow.  The complainant immediately brought this matter to the knowledge of OP number 2 who is the manufacturer of the laptop. The OP number 2 tried to remove the defects through online process, but nothing could be done. As such, the complainant requested the Ops to refund the amount of the price of the laptop. Though the request of the complainant was approved, but the laptop was not taken back by the Ops and the payment was not refunded.  Further the learned counsel has argued that on 9.4.2020 the complainant again received message from the OP number 1 seeking sorry for not resolving the problem of complainant due to nationwide lockdown.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued vehemently that whole of the matter is very much in the knowledge of the Ops, but they are not refunding the amount to the complainant by taking various lame excuses. As such, the learned counsel for complainant has prayed for acceptance of complaint.  

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has vehemently argued that the laptop was purchased from the third party seller who had sold the product to the complainant through the third party logistic service product. It is further contended by the learned counsel for OP number 1 that the business of the OP number 1 falls within the definition of an ‘intermediary’ under section 2(1)(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned counsel has also argued that OP number 1 merely operates an online platform and all the products on the platform are sold and supplied by the independent third party seller. The other allegations have been denied.

8.             The learned counsel for OP number 2 has argued vehemently that the laptop in question is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same depends upon various facts such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and the software installed on the system.  Any misleading of the system or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system.  However, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has admitted that the complainant purchased the laptop vide invoice number FABBA32000001154 dated 2.3.2020 for Rs.27,870/- and further admitted that it bears a warranty of one year.  However, it is denied that there was any of the defect in the laptop in question.  It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question and other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

9.             To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of invoice showing purchase of the laptop in question, Ex.C-3 is the copy of warranty card, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-18 are copies of various emails exchanged between the complainant and the Ops.

10.            On the other hand, the OP number 1 has   tendered affidavit of  Ms. Sheetal Tiwari and has deposed as per the written version.  Admittedly in the present case the complainant placed an order with the OP and paid an amount of Rs.27,870/- to the OP.  The order was booked  by OP number 1 with the OP number 2 and the parcel was delivered to the complainant.  It is mentioned that the laptop in question was defective one and was not working properly as its processor was slow, which fact was brought to the knowledge of the Ops, but they failed to replace the laptop or to refund its price though the Ops admitted to do so, which fact is also supported by the copy of message Ex.C-5, wherein it has been clearly stated that the ‘return approved’ on 20.3.2020 which was expected to be picked up on 24.3.2020, but of no use.  Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 are text messages sent to the complainant from OP number 1 where it has been stated “we are sorry to let you know that due to the current nationwide lockdown, we are operating with reduced staffing. Please note that it may take longer than usual to respond to your concern…”. Again Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-16 are copies of documents showing again that ‘the return was approved on 19.4.2020’ but the same was not effected.  Again Ex.C-11 clearly shows that the OP number 1 has accepted that the refund of Rs.27870/- will be added to the bank account of the complainant within three business days, but again nothing was done.  Again in Ex.C-15 OP number 1 has accepted that refund will be made by 30.6.2020.  To rebut the above said stand, there is nothing produced by OP number 1.  There is not even a single word by OP number 1 in the reply that they have not accepted the request for the refund of the amount of Rs.27870/- pertaining to the complainant.   In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear and fit case, where the amount of Rs.27,870/- deserves to be refunded to the complainant as the OP number 1 and 2 has clearly accepted in so many documents that they will refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.27870/-.

11.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.27,870/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.7.2020 till its realization in full. We further direct the complainant to return the defective laptop with all its accessories to them at the time of receiving the payment. We further direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and another amount of Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses.   This order be complied with by the opposite parties number 1 and 2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

13.    A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        July 22, 2022.