Haryana

Karnal

CC/142/2016

Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart WS Retail Service Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurnam Singh

04 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.142 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 05.05.2016

                                                      Date of decision:04.06.2018

 

Gurnam Singh o/o Block Education Officer, Indri District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Flipkart WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd. Ozone Manay Tech Park no.56/18, “B” Block, 9^th Floor Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road Banglore, Karnataka-560068 through its Authorized Signatory.

2. Tara Tele & Mobile, Shop no.35, Mela Ram School Market, near Sachdeva Hospital, Karnal through its Manager.

3. Service Centre Chandigarh, shop no.2471-72, 1^st floor, Sector-22-C, Chandigarh.

4. M.I. Global Home, Kaverappa Layour, Kadubeesanahlli Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President    

                Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present   Shri M.R. Bhardwaj Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

                   OPs no.2 and 3 exparte.

                   Shri Amit Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.4.

         

ORDER:                    

 

                         (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had online purchased a mobile of MI company which was sold by OP no.1 through flipkart vide order ID no.0D302844820103272800, for a sum of Rs.12999/- vide invoice no.bir_wfld20150500577640 dated 14.05.2015. After sometime the said mobile was not working properly as the mobile was not charging properly and also heat problem. Complainant contacted the OP no.2 and then OP no.2 assured that the problems were removed and deposit the same vide job sheet no.JS16030801078 dated 8.3.2016 and assured that they will return the same upto 15.03.2016 but on 15.03.2016 when complainant visited the OP no.2 then OP no.2 says that now parts of the phone is not available with them and they have already placed an order and advised that complainant will came after 2-3 days. Complainant again visited the OP no.2 on 12.04.2016 and then OP no.2 says that they will change the part but the problem is not removed and said that same is manufacturing problem and is not repairable. Thereafter, complainant visited to the OP no.3 and told about the mobile problem and OP no.3 refused to receive the same by saying that the part of the said mobile is duplicate and refused to receive the same. Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint through mobile vide complaint no.1505150 dated 15.04.2016 but the mobile was not repaired. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the mobile set in question due to malafide intention and to gain illegally from the OP. There is no relation between the OP no.1 and manufacturer of the product and its service center. It is further stated that the entire grievance of the complainant relates to the defects in the product and the issues related to OP no.2 and not to OP no.1. It is pertinent to mention here that in case there is manufacturing defect in the product, the liability cannot be fastened on the dealer but it should be on the manufacturer. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the product in question was sold by the OP carrying manufacturer’s warranty as provided by the manufacturer and complainant was well aware of it. The OP no.1 is neither the Manufacturer not its Service Centre hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the OP.  It is further submitted that OP no.1 provides 30 days return/replacement policy to its customer in case there is any issue with the product. However, in the present case complainant used the product near about 10 months and did not approach the OP for any kind of defect/problem. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 29.07.2016 and 23.06.2016 respectively.

4.             OP no.4 filed its separate written statement stating therein that complainant has allegedly purchased a mobile phone sold under the Mi brand for Rs.12,999/- vide invoice dated May 14, 2015. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms. On March 08, 2016 the complainant approached authorized service centre of OP no.4 with a complaint regarding the Product. The service engineer duly recorded the issues in service job sheet no.JS16030801078 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, all the defects related to the product were duly and properly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the OP no.4, and the product was delivered to the complainant without any charge under the warranty terms and conditions in proper working condition. It is further submitted that the complainant has also not provided any evidence to prove or demonstrate manufacturing defects in the product. Mere allegations and unsupported averments in the complaint regarding manufacturing defects in the product cannot be held against the OP no.4 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product. Complainant raised  no objection at the time of delivery of the product to clearly implying that the product was delivered to the complainant in proper working condition. The complainant also did not provide a fair opportunity to the OP no.4 to examine any further defects in the product by submitting the product for repair and instead directly close to file the present complaint. Hence there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 23.12.2016.

6.             On the other hand, OP1 tendered into evidence affidavit Swati Singh Ex.RW/A. OP no.4 tendered into evidence documents Ex.A and Ex.B and closed their evidence on 14.02.2017 and 9.5.2018.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record available on the file carefully.

8.             From the pleadings of the case, it is clear that there is no dispute about the facts that complainant had purchased the mobile in question from OP no.1 on 14.05.2015 vide invoice Ex.C-3 for Rs.12999/-. There is also no dispute that the said mobile set was not working properly as problem of charging and heat arose and the complainant contacted OP no.2 vide job sheet no.JS16030801078 dated 8.3.2016.

9.             From the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the complainant submitted the product in question to OP no.2 on 8.3.2016 and OP no.2 issue the job sheet dated 8.3.2016 Ex.C-2. According to the complainant, the mobile phone was returned without repair whereas according to the OP no.4, the same was delivered to the complainant after necessary repair and in proper working condition.

10.            It is not disputed that when the product is returned to the customer whether repaired or un-repaired, the job sheet is taken back by the service centre and the fact regarding the repair is also mentioned in the job-sheet. In the present case, the OP no.4 contended that product was delivered to the complainant after repair and in proper working condition. So, the onus to prove that the mobile was return after repair was upon the OP no.4. The best evidence to prove the same was the job sheet which was taken back by the OP no.2 at the time of return of the product but the OPs have not produced the same and with held the best evidence. No doubt the OP no.2 was the proper person to reply and produce the job sheet but the OP no.2 opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, OP no.4 can produce the same because OP no.2 was his service provider but OP no.4 has also not produced the same. The OPs have even not produced any other evidence like the report of its engineer etc. vide which it can be said that the product was  repaired and was in working condition when it was delivered to the complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs have failed to prove on the file that the product when delivered back to the complainant against job sheet dated 8.3.2016 was repaired and was  in proper working condition.

11.            It is pertinent to mention here that according to the complainant after getting the product from OP no.2, he approached the OP no.3, who did not receive the same and returned without any job sheet. The OP no.3 can reply these facts but OP no.3 did not appear in the complaint and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So the evidence of the complainant regarding this fact goes unrebutted and unchallenged against OPs no.2 and 3. It is further pertinent to mention here that thereafter the complainant lodge a complaint and gave complaint number in the complaint but the OPs have not replied about the same which means the OPs have admitted the same.

12.            In view of above facts, circumstances and discussion, we are of the opinion that the OPs have failed to prove on the file that the OPs have resolved the grievance of the complainant. Hence the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

13.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.2 to 4 to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant and make the same in working condition. However, it is made clear that if the mobile set in question is not repairable, then replace the same with new one of same make and model. It is further made clear that if the mobile set of the same make and model is not available with the OPs as purchased by the complainant, then the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.12999/- the cost of the mobile set. We further direct the OPs no.2 to 4 to pay Rs.3300/- on account of mental tension, pain, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of 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:04.06.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member