Orissa

Rayagada

CC/7/2017

Digant Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart internet Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 07 / 2017.                                         Date.     8. 11 . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,.                                                 Member.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,                                  Member

Sri Digant Patra,   Axis  bank  lane,  New Colony,  Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The  Manager, Flipkart Internet Private Ltd., Ozone manay Tech park, #56/18 & 55 /09, 7^th. Floor,  Gravebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore, -560068, Karnataka state(India).

2.The Manager,  Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakundi  Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Habli, Bangalore, 560037, Karnataka(India).

                                                                                      .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Smt. Pranati Patra and associates, Rayagada

For the O.P  No.1:- Sri  Ramakant Jena  and associates.

For the O.P.No.2:- Set exparte.

                                                J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  the sale price a sum  Rs.8,499/- towards the defective  mobile set.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

1.       The complainant had purchased a  Hand set LenovoVibe K-5 plus 3 GB (Dark Grey, 16 GB  through the O.P. No.1 vide  Retail invoice bill  No. #DEL 20160800077420 Dt. 16.08.2016 amounting to Rs. 8,499/-.   The above set  was not function properly and   had  become   defunct within  few months.  Immediately   the complainant has approached  the  O.P.  No.1 and had complained regarding the defect and requested  him to replace  the above set  with a new one in as much as the defect is noticed within four months from  the date of its  purchase. There is  no  service centre  of the Lenovo  mobile phone  in and around of  500 Kms from our locality . The complainant has suffered  a  lot  of difficulties while operating  above set such as follows. The battery back up of the hand set is not at all satisfactory. While browsing the handset gets automatically generates heat and shut   down and showing low battery. The screen of the above set hangs and not functioning.  Hence the complainant  approached the  forum. The  complainant prays the forum  to direct the  O.Ps to refund  sale price of the above set  a sum of Rs.8,499/- and to pay  compensation, cost and  such other relief  as the hon’ble  forum deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

2.       On being noticed the O.P. No.1 appeared  through their learned counsel  and filed written version.  The O.P. No.1  submitted that  the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the O.P.No.1.  As the O.P. No.1  is protected  by the provisions of Section-79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. The  O.P. No.1 neither offers  nor provides any assurance and/or offers  warranty   to the end    buyers  of the  product.   The  O.P. No.1 is neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 1  is only  limited  liabilities to providing on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website.  Therefore  the O.P. No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P. No.1 for the best  interest   of justice.

3.       The O.P. No. 2 did not appear pursuant to the  notice  and was proceeded  exparte. In view of justice as contemplated U/S- 13 (2) (b) (ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 as the statutory period  for filing  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

 

               

The O.P  No. 1   appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the   O.P  No.1    and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by   the parties. 

            The  O.P. No.1  vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

4.         In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.P. No.2  it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.P. No.2    deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  warranty  card  which  intended      with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.P  No.2  has failed to  give such service  as per warranty card  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.P No.2  is   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

When   the  O.P No.2 had  sold  Hand set LenovoVibe K-5 plus 3 GB (Dark Grey, 16 GB  through the O.P. No.1 vide  Retail invoice bill  No. #DEL 20160800077420 Dt. 16.08.2016 amounting to Rs. 8,499/- and  issued  warranty card   to give service  free of cost within one year from the date of purchase  for a valuable   consideration and even  after   receipt  of the said consideration in advance,  non performance  of   the  same in spite  of   several  approaches from time to time    by the complainant  which amounts to  breach of  the  said   warranty    and further  giving false  promise  with  an intention to  extract  money and  subsequently failed  in  giving  the  service  as  promised.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to receive  the full   amount which was paid by the complainant to the O.P. No. 2   bearing retail  invoice  No. #DEL 20160800077420 with  up-to-date  bank  interest from the O.Ps  who have broken  the  contract, Compensation  for any  loss or damage caused to him  thereby,  which  naturally arose in the usual course  of things  for  such breach  or which the party  knew when they have  made the  contract ought to considered.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

We observed   the O.P No.2’s  service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.P No.2  with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to unfair trade practice,  delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps the complainant   sustained  financial loss  mental agony, damages  etc hence the O.P. No.2 is liable to pay compensation  under circumstances of the case.

In the  present case  the O.P. No.2 is  liable.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

5.         In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.P  No. 2  and  contest against  the O.P. No.1.

            The O.P. No.2  is ordered to take back their product and  refund price of the  LenovoVibe K-5 plus 3 GB (Dark Grey, 16 GB mobile handset  a sum of Rs. 8,499/- to the complainant. The O.P. No.2  is further ordered to pay  Rs.1,000/- towards  litigation  expenses  to the complainant.        

The O.P. No.1 is ordered to refer the matter  to the O.P.No.2 for early compliance of the order..

                        The O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days from the date of  receipt of this order. 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this       8th       .   day    of  November,      2017.

 

Member                                   MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.