Haryana

Karnal

CC/265/2021

Kavita - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Retail Prvate Limited - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 265 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.08.06.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 03.06.2022

 

Kavita d/o Dal Chand, resident of house no.3663 Bhim Nagar Sadar Bazar Karnal-132001, Haryana contact no.9034244138.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Filipkart Internet Retail Private Limited- Vaishnavi Summit no.6/B, 7^th main 80 feet Road, 3^rd Block Koramangla Banglore-560034 Thru its Director/Manager.

2.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited Likewa Business center, 8^th floor, Umiya Business Bay, Tower-1, Cessna Business Park, Kedubeesanahalli Marathohalli, Sarjapur, Outer ring Road Banglore-560103.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

      

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant wants to purchase one mobile set and she saw the advertisement on the shopping site of OP no.1 and it was shown that the mobiles made of Xiaomi company are one of the best quality mobile. Under the influence and as per the quality claimed by the OP, complainant placed an order for purchase of a mobile marka-Poco M-1 on 21.09.2020 manufactured by OP no.2 company amounting to Rs.10,249/-. The payment made by the complainant to OP no.1 through online. The OP no.2 has provided one year warranty/guaranty of the said mobile. It was assured by the OP if any defect arises within warranty period, the mobile will be either repaired free of cost if not repairable than the OP no.2 will replace the same with new one. After sometimes of purchase of the mobile set, it started creating problems i.e. hanging, heating, camera auto off and mobile auto switch on/off problem. Complainant complained the OP no.1 and told about the defect in the mobile set. Firstly, OP no.1 assured that they will provide some solution to the problem, but nothing done by OP no.1 in this regard. Complainant again in the month of November, 2020 contacted the OP no.1 and requested to resolve the problem as the same is not working and complainant is unable to enjoy the mobile but OP no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.2 and told all the defects of the mobile. On the advice of the OP no.2 complainant checked the mobile set from the service centre of the company on 07.01.2021. The service centre retained the mobile and issued the job sheet no.WXIN210107008414 but it was surprising to see that the defects reported by the complainant was not mentioned on the job sheet and only the defect of auto off was mentioned on job sheet. Complainant asked about the same but  no satisfactory reply was given by the official of the service centre. The service centre of the company returned the mobile set to the complainant after 2-3 days but when complainant is using the same the problems are as it is. Thereafter, complainant again approached the service centre and again reported the problem. The service centre only formally checked the mobile by putting on use for 5-10 minutes and told that they have checked the mobile set and there is no defect in the mobile and service centre also refused to issue the job sheet and told that they updated the software of mobile. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that OP no.1 provides online marketplace platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to the seller and buyer of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers. It is further pleaded that flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. In the present complaint also, it is evident that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller i.e. OP no.2. The grievance of the complainant is with respect to the alleged defects in the goods and after sale services provided by the manufacturer i.e. OP no.2 and/or the service centre engaged by the manufacturer under manufacturer’s warranty clause not the answering OP. It is further pleaded that complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP no.1 in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 in its written version stated that the complainant has not approached any of the authorized service centers of the OP no.2 before or after January 07, 2021. On that day the mobile set of the complainant was repaired and complainant accepted the repairing handset without any objection.  It is further stated that OP no.2 duly received the mobile set in question and examined it for defects, thereafter, repaired the product in accordance with standard warranty. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of service record Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 12.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ayush employed as Engineer Ex.OP1/A, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP1, copy of limited warranty statement Ex.OP3, copy of jobsheet dated 07.01.2021 Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 11.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has submitted that complainant placed an order for on 21.09.2020 of one mobile marka-Poco M-I through OP no.1 and make payment amounting to Rs.10,249/- via online. After 2-3 months of purchasing the mobile set started giving problems i.e.  hanging, hearting, camera auto off and mobile auto switch on/off. She contacted the OP no.1 in the month of 2020 and narrated about the said problems, but OP no.1 showed its inability. Thereafter, on 07.01.2021 she approached the authorized service centre of the company for the said problem, the service centre of the company repaired the same and handed over the mobile set after 2-3 days. When complainant used the mobile set the problem was as it is and he again approached the service centre for repair of the mobile set, service centre again repaired the mobile set but the defect was not removed. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 is only a facilitator not a manufacturer of the product. All the products on flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by OP no.1, on terms decided by the respective sellers only.  He further argued that complainant never approached any of the authorized service centers of the OP no.2 before or after January 07, 2021. On 07.01.2021 the mobile set of the complainant was repaired and complainant accepted the repairing handset without any objection.  He further argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question as alleged. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           It is admitted fact that on 21.09.2020 complainant purchased mobile set in question of the OP no.2 company through OP no.1. After sometime the unit started giving problem. It is admitted by OP no. 2 in their written statement that on 07.01.2021 complainant approached its service centre and made complaint about the problem in the mobile set. The service centre of the OP no.2 kept the mobile set and issued the job sheet Ex.C2/Ex.OP4. The product was duly repaired.

11.           As per version of the complainant, complainant approached the service centre of the company after 07.01.2021 for the abovesaid problems in the mobile set but the officials of the service centre formally checked the mobile and handed over to the complainant by saying that there is no defect in the mobile set and also refused to issue the job sheet. The onus to prove its case lies upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence that inspite of removing the defects by the service centre the problems remains same, which clearly indicates that the product in question has a manufacturing defect. It has been proved from the record that the problem had occurred in the mobile set from the very beginning.

12.           The OP no.1 has taken a plea that OP No.1 that it is only a platform to book the product and that the products are being sold by the sellers, therefore, it has no responsibility of any kind. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the sellers have been authorized by the OP No.1. By merely saying that OP No.1 has no responsibility, the OP No.1 cannot escape from its liability and this plea taken by OP No.1 has no force.

13.           During the course of arguments the complainant stated that as he has purchased a new mobile set so the cost of mobile set  in question may please be returned from the OPs. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question is having a manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence, the act of the OPs is amounts to deficiency in service.

14.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,249/- as cost of the mobile set in question to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.6000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expense. However, complainant is also directed to handover the mobile set in question to the OPs alongwith accessories. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.06.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member