Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1037/2016

Tarun Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart.Com No. 447/B, 1st A Cross 12th Main, 4th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchange Koramanga - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Varun Bhardwaj Adv.

09 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1037/2016
Date of Institution	:	17.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	09/05/2017

 

                                       

                                               

Taran Arora aged 24 years son of Sh.Ajit Arora r/o House No.716, Sector 8, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Flipkart.com, No.447/B, 1^st A Cross, 12^th Main,4^th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchange, Koramangla, Bangalore-560034, Karnataka, India through its Authorized Representative.

 

2.     Lenovo Motorola Service Centre, SCO 26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

3.     Motorola Excellence Centre, Head Office, 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana -122001 through its Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant

                   Sh.Rohit Kumar, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh.Manwar Singh, Authorized Agent for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a Motorola E3 Power (16 GB Black) through flipkart vide Invoice dated 09.10.2016 for Rs.7999/-, having warranty of one year and the same was to be presented to his father as a gift.  However, the same started giving problem of “Phone automatically silent mode” and as such the same was landed with OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 10.11.2016 and the same was delivered back on 18.11.2016 with the assurance that no problems will be caused in future. However, the same started giving the same problem and as such the same was handed over to OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 21.11.2016 and the same has not been repaired after his repeated calls/e-mails.  It has further been averred that his father is not having any other mobile phone to use as the same is lying with OP No.2 since 21.11.2016 and he is suffering huge loss in business due to the deficient services of the OPs. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.          In its written statement,   OP No.1 has admitted that the complainant has placed the order of the mobile handset through its website and the same was delivered to him.  It has been pleaded that it merely operates the portal and is not involved in actual commercial transactions being carried out between the buyer and the seller/vendors registered with the portal and the products are directly sold by the seller on the demand of purchaser. It has further been pleaded that there is no direct link of the purchaser/complainant with it.  It has further been pleaded that e-mails, if any, were exchanged between the complainant and OPs No.2 and 3.  It has further been pleaded that it only provides market place to the seller and buyer and the role played by it is only as an intermediary and nothing else.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Upon notice, Sh.Manwar Singh, Authorized Representative on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 put in appearance.
4.         We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, OP No.1 and the authorized representative on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3 and have gone through the documentary evidence on file.
5.         During the pendency of the complaint, Sh.Manwar Singh, Authorized Representative on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3 offered to refund the price of the mobile handset but the complainant has prayed for litigation costs and other expenses towards compensation.
6.         Admittedly, the mobile phone started giving problems soon after its purchase and the same was landed with OP No.2 i.e. authorized service center for its repairs thrice but it failed to rectify the problem despite its repeated efforts.   The mobile phone is lying with OP No.2 since 21.11.2016 but it failed to rectify the defect despite repeated requests/e-mails. It is only after the filing of the instant complaint that OPs No.2 and 3 wake up from its deep slumber and offered to pay price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant.  They took more than five months to redress genuine grievance of the complainant and that too after filing of the instant complaint before this Forum, which itself amounts to deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.  Had they redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant within the reasonable period of 1-2 weeks or before filing of the instant complaint then the position certainly would have been different but they did not do so.
7.          Keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.3,500/- as litigation expenses. We order accordingly.
8.         In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is allowed qua OPs No.2 and 3 and they are directed as under:

a]     To refund Rs.7,999/- i.e. price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant.

b]     To pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment;

c]     To pay Rs.3,500/- as litigation expenses.

9.           This order shall be complied with by OPs No.2 and 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the amounts as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of this order till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.
10.         The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09/05/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER