Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 258.
Instituted on : 07.06.2018.
Decided on : 29.11.2021.
Ankush Dahiya (age 29 years) s/o Partap Singh Dahiya R/o H.no.DEE 83/1, Ward No.31, Anil Vihar, Opposite Malviya School, Sonipat-131001, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Head Office: Ozone Manay Tech Park, #56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, through its Director/M.D.
- SWASTIK Systems(Service Center LeEco Mobile Phones) situated at Shop no.7, Bapu Asha Ram Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak(Haryana), through its Prop.Partner/ Manager/Authorized.
- WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., 42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Banglore, Karnataka, India-560067, through its Director/M.D.
- M/s LeEco Ltd.(company Corporate)(manufacturer), D.L.F. Corporate Park, Town 4B, 2nd Floor, (Unit No.201-202), D.,LF. Corporate park, Gurgaon-1222001, through its Director/M.D.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party no.1 & 3.
Opposite party no.2 & 4 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a LeEco Letv Le IS mobile phone for a sum of Rs.10999/- through opposite party no.1, manufactured by opposite party No.4 and sold by opposite party No.3. But the said mobile phone started malfunctioning within three months from the date of its purchase as in on mode handset not getting charged. On dated 19.05.2016 complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and submitted the said defective product there but till today the opposite party did not hand over the said mobile set to the complainant despite his several visits and the same is lying with opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that there arose some inherent manufacturing defects in the said mobile phone which are not capable of being removed. Complainant requested the opposite party many times to replace the said defective product or to refund the price of mobile set but to no effect. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 08.08.2016 through registered post but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the same. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The independent third party sellers use the Flipkart Platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer to visit the Flipkart Platform. Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller on the Flipkart Platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on the Flipkart Platform. The answering opposite party has no role to play in offering or providing after sale services to the customers. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party No.3 also submitted that answering opposite party in the entire transaction is limited only to selling the products of various manufactures and in the present complainant the manufacturer is opposite party no.4. Hence no cause of action lies against the opposite party No.3 and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However, opposite parties no.2 and 4 did not appear despite service. As such opposite parties No.2 and 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.07.2018 and 13.11.2019 respectively of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 16.03.2020. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP no.1 & 3 has made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 26.07.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set on 09.02.2016 but the said mobile phone started malfunctioning within three months from the date of its purchase as in on mode handset not getting charged. Complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on dated 19.05.2016 and submitted the said defective product there but till today the opposite party has not handed over the said mobile set to the complainant despite his several visits and the same is lying with opposite party No.2. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.C2 as per which, Handset in question was having charging problem and as per remarks, : “In On mode handset not getting charged but in off mode its getting charged”. On the other hand, neither the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 or the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.4 have appeared before this Commission. As such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile in question stands proved. Hence opposite party No.4 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.4 to pay Rs.10999/- say Rs.11000/-(rounded off)(Rupees eleven thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.06.2018 till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile in question is already in the possession of service centre.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.11.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
