Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/44/2016

A.velayudham - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART.COM - Opp.Party(s)

S.V.Paravin Rathinam

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.02.2016

                                                               Order pronounced on:  02.03.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY  THE 02^nd  DAY OF MARCH  2020

 

C.C.NO.44/2016

 

A.Velayudham,

S/o.Mr.Avudainayagam,

No.5/3018, Jeevan Bhima Nagar,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Chennai – 600 101.                                                                                        

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. Flipkart.com,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

No.447/B, 1^st A Cross,

12^th Main, 4^th Block,

Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.

 

2.F1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Managing Director,

New No.18/1, Old No14/6, Behind Ega Theatre, Vasu Street,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

3.ASUS Mobiles India (ASUS Technology Pvt. Ltd),

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Office at:

        4C, Gundecha Onclave,

Kherani Road,

Near Sakinaka Police Chowki,

Sakinaka, Andheri-E, Mumbai – 400 007.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, Karthikeyan

                                                                       Sekar & B.Karthikeyan

 

Counsel for  1^st opposite party                    : M/s.Iyer and Thomas, Karthik

                                                                         Seshadri, Elizabeth Seshadri

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                   : Ex- parte (03.05.2016)

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                   : Mr.K.Jayakannan & Krishnan.K.

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a mobile phone ASUS ZENFONE 5 worth Rs.8,400/- having its serial number as F4AZFGOM 730 through the 1^st opposite party on 13.05.2015. Right from the beginning, the product was malfunctioning by rebooting on its own. To the  shock and surprise of complainant the malfunctioning of the phone i.e. automatic rebooting issue never stopped and hence he decided to contact the customer care of the 3^rd opposite party where he was directed to contact the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service person of the product. Thus the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and gave the product for service on 08.08.2015 where he was told that they will rectify the problem and intimate as soon as the product is ready. The complainant  did not receive any call as promised by 2^nd opposite party and he himself had called them and enquired about the status. For his shock and dismay, he was told that the mother board of the product has a technical problem and it has to be changed and they will replace the mother board only by 28.09.2015. The complainant right from the date of giving the product for service to the 2^nd opposite party, they were giving one reason or the other to take a call on the issue and still has not given a solid answer till date which itself clearly shows that the fault is on the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party. Since  there was no proper response from 2^nd opposite party the complainant   sent a legal notice to the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties for deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party provides an online platform to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate transactions. The  1^st opposite party is not engaged in selling of any good on its own. It only provides online platform to different registered sellers where  they sell goods and the visitors/buyers of the website, voluntarily, enter into transaction of purchase of various goods from those sellers at their own choice. The complainant has purchased the product from one of the sellers listed on the website. The 1^st opposite party is not involved in the entire transaction except for providing online platform to the respective seller. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. The complainant herein does not fall under the category of consumer of the 1^st opposite party. It is pertinent to note that no allegations have been raised against the 1^st opposite party in the complaint and also that the complainant has not sought any relief against the 1^st opposite party. Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint.

 

 

3.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits the purchase of their mobile phone ASUS ZENFONE bearing Sl.No.F4AZFGOM730 for the value of Rs.8,589/- on 13.05.2015 from the 1^st opposite party. Immediately after purchase of the said Mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had reported that it was not functioning. After investigation and having attended on the said mobile phone the complainant was not at all satisfied. The opposite party also affirmed that they would make alternative arrangements to deliver to him at free of cost  a new mobile phone, taking back the said defective mobile phone. In these circumstances, the complainant  had approached this  Forum.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant purchased a mobile phone  named as ASUS ZENFONE 5 worth Rs.8,400/- having serial No. F4Azfgom 730 through 1^st opposite party  on 13.05.2015 vide Ex.A1 invoice. According to the complainant the mobile was malfunctioning from the day one of its purchase and   had approached with the mobile  for service on 08.08.2015 (Ex.A2) to the 2^nd opposite party  who is the authorized service centre  as per the instructions given by the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant learnt that the mother board had to be changed and they will replace the mother board only by 28.08.2015. Not satisfied with the reply the complainant insisted for replacement with a new product of the same brand and model for which there is no answer from either parties. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are the communication between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party and also mail conversations between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.

         06.  The 1^st opposite party had filed Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment and Flip cart terms of use and resolution passed by board of directors as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. As per the documents provided by the 1^st opposite party and also on perusal of records the 1^st opposite party  is only an online platform to facilitate the transaction as intermediary between the seller and the buyer on its website and 1^st opposite party is not involved in any transaction except for providing as online platform for the transaction and there is no prayer  sought against the 1^st opposite party  also except for the cost for which complainant is not entitled to receive cost from  1^st opposite party in view of the  circumstances and nature of the role played by the 1^st opposite party.

07. The complainant had given the mobile phone to 2^nd  opposite party for service.  The  purchase of the mobile and given for service to the 2^nd opposite party is not denied. Admittedly the complaint before the 2^nd  opposite party was given within the warranty period. The 2^nd  opposite party contends that even after the service done by the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant is not satisfied with that and hence 2^nd & 3^rd  opposite parties had offered for an alternative arrangement such as offer of supplying a brand new phone worth of Rs.16,999/- free of cost in order to continue good relationship between them and  the same was not accepted by the complainant in view of their claim towards deficiency in service.  It is also argued by the learned counsel for 3^rd opposite party that the new product of the same brand and model is not available at present.  Hence it is reasonable to order to refer the cost of the product.  However the delayed act of the 2^nd & 3^rd  opposite parties  amounts to deficiency in service.

08. POINT NO .2:

As discussed in point No.1 mental agony caused to the complainant due to inconvenience without mobile for sometime is to be accepted. The  2^nd & 3^rd  opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,400/- as cost of mobile to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service besides  sum of Rs.2,000/- for costs.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties jointly or severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,400/- (Rupees eight thousand and four hundred only) towards the cost of the mobile to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 /-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service  besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 02^th day of March 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.05.2015                   E-bill of the purchase from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 08.08.2015          The charge sheet given by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 18.08.2015          Mail communication between the complainant and

To 19.08.2015                            3^rd opposite party’s   customer support team

                                                    

 

Ex.A4 dated 23.12.2015          conversation between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on E-commerce-Annexure – I

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Flipkart Terms of use. Annexure – II

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      The Resolution passed by the Board of Directors- Annexure - III         

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                                ….. NIL …..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT