Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/46/2016

Anudeep Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart.com - Opp.Party(s)

In person

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/46/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/01/2016
Date of Decision	:	14/07/2016

 

 

Anudeep Bhandari, R/o House No.3002, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh – 160002.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

(1)    Flipkart.com, No.447/B, 1^st A Cross, 12^th Main, 4^th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchange, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560034, Karnataka, India, through its CEO.

 

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

 

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

 

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Anudeep Bhandari, Complainant has brought this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Flipkart.com & Others, (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased a Moto X Style mobile handset for Rs.29,999/-  through Flipkart on 10.12.2015. After one month, the said mobile handset stopped working showing no sim cards. It was accordingly taken to Opposite Party No.2 (Service Centre), who after inspection gave an estimate of Rs.23,738/- with a note ‘Return without repair due to physical damage in Sim Tray’ on Customer Information Slip dated 18.01.2016. According to the Complainant, Flipkart had supplied him a defective, substandard product and the Lenovo Motorola had unreasonably demanded the repair charges accusing him of damaging the phone physically. Hence, 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.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 and 2, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 03.03.2016 and 21.04.2016 respectively.
3.         In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1, while admitting the basic facts of the case, has pleaded that it is not engaged in selling of any goods on its own and its role/ involvement is that of an intermediary only, that is, to provide an on-line platform to merely facilitate the entire transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its website. The answering Opposite Party is neither the Seller, nor the Manufacturer or its Service Centre, and hence no liability can be fastened upon it. Moreover, in the entire Complaint, the Complainant has not raised even a single grievance which directly relates to the answering Opposite Party. While denying all other allegations and pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.
8.         It is evident from retail invoice/bill, available at page no.6 of the paper book, that the Complainant purchased one Moto X Style mobile handset on 10.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.29,999/- through Flipkart.com i.e. Opposite Party No.1. As per the Customer Information Slip annexed at page no.7 the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 on 18.01.2016 with certain defect in his mobile handset. As per the allegation of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2, after inspecting the defective handset, gave an estimate of Rs.23,738/- with a note ‘Return without repair due to physical damage to Sim Tray’ on the aforesaid slip.  The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 has supplied him a defective handset and the Opposite Party No.2 has given an unreasonable repair estimation of a huge amount of Rs.23,738/-; whereas, the total cost of the handset is Rs.29,999/- only.
9.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that it is an online platform to merely facilitate the transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its website. It being neither the Seller nor the Manufacturer or Service Centre is not liable for any kind of deficiency in service.
10.         It is pertinent to note that it is only Opposite Party No.2, who could spell out the reasons for raising such an estimate of Rs.23,738/-. However, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and rather preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.
11.         In our opinion, due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, the Complainant has suffered a lot and this inaction on their part clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly has caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.
12.         Significantly, Opposite Party No.1 is merely an online market place and is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the mobile handset in question, hence it cannot remotely be held responsible for the alleged grievance raised by the Complainant.
13.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 alone, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

[a]    To refund Rs.29,999/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay a composite amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation;

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

14.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay Rs.29,999/- the invoice price of the handset along with composite payment of Rs.5,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint, till realization.    

15.

Announced

14/07/2016                                                       

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”