Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/558

Kunal Sofat - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

complainant in person

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 558 dated 06.12.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 28.04.2022. 

 

Kunal Kumar S/o. Sh. S.P. Sofat, 57, Friends Cly, Pakhowal Road, Vill. Daad, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager/Partner/Prop. Vaishani Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru (560034)
2. Shreyash Retails Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager/Partner/Prop., A-285, Main Bhisham Pitamaha Marg, Defence Colony (1^st & 2^nd Landing), New Delhi-110024.                                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,               1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         Sh. J.D. Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Upinder Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                As per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant purchased one MI NOTE 7 PRO mobile from OP2 vide invoice dated 23.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,999/-. The purchase was made online through website of OP1. The product was delivered to the complainant on 26.07.2019. After a few days, it was found that there was a technical problem in the cell phone as much as there was some problem with the side speaker of the phones. The complainant lodged a complaint with customer care of Flipkart and asked them to replace and return the cell phone. A return Id no.12201617128576423322 dated 06.08.2019 was generated by the Flipkart customer care. An engineer visited the complainant to check the problem of the cell phone. After checking, the engineer accepted the problem as a manufacturing fault. The set had low  parameters of listening the voice and on adopting new method, voice speaker will slow down & set user will also feel uncomfortable for using the cell phone in new style. However, Flipkart customer care refused to exchange or return the product. Another complaint was lodged with OP1 on 13.08.2019 but no action was taken. The mobile phone  had a warranty of one year. Therefore, the OPs are bound to replace the same. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to change the cell phone and be made to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.  

2.                The complaint has been resisted by OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as against OP1 which is only an electronic market place model E-commerce platform  acting as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. According to OP2, the entire grievance relates to defect in the product and after sale service. It is well settled that liability of defect in the product rests with the manufacturer only and the manufacturer has not been made a party. OP2 is merely a reseller of the product and it cannot remove the defects in the product. The complainant has to approach the manufacturer of the product as the warranty or guaranty, if any, is provided by the manufacturer alone. Moreover, the complaint does not point out any specific grievance against OP2. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

4.                No evidence has been led by the complainant in this case nor any affidavit and documents has been formally tendered by the complainant. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant in this case since 30.06.2020.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 has tendered affidavit ex. RA of Ms. Sheetal Tiwari, authorized signatory of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record carefully. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                As per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has alleged some manufacturing defects in the mobile purchased by him from OP2. In para no.1 of the complaint, it has simply been alleged that there was some technical problem in the cell phone and there was no listening from the right side speaker of the phone. As no evidence has been formally led by the complainant nor any expert witness has been examined to prove the inherent manufacturing defect in the cell phone, the allegations made in the complaint remain unsubstantiated.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Kunal Kumar Vs Flipkart Internet                                  CC/19/558 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. J.D. Singh Ahuja, Advocate for the OP1.

                   Sh. Upinder Singh, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 30.06.2020

                   Learned counsel for OP1 closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA and documents Ex. RA and Ex. R2.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OPs heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.