Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/5/2016

Brinder SIngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart.com - Opp.Party(s)

Sh GS Sandhu

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 05 of 2016

                                           Date of institution : 11.01.2016                                                  Date of decision    : 23.08.2016

Brinder Singh son of Sh. Harpal Singh R/o H.No.340, old ward No.15, now W.No.9, Dashmesh Nagar Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Flipkart.com, 2^nd Floor, 1-2/16, Ansari Road Darya Ganj Delhi 110002, India through its Authorized signatory.
2. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Warehouse 435, Road No. # 04, Lal Dora Ext. Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037, India, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. Asus Service Center, Sector 32-D, SCO No.274, 1^st  & 2^nd Floor, Near Nirman Cinema, Chandigarh-160 031 through its Authorized Signatory.

 …..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Sections 11,12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                         

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh.G.S.Sandhu, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                        Opposite parties No.1 & 2 Proforma Party.                                         Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

 ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Brinder Singh son of Sh. Harpal Singh R/o H.No.340, old ward No.15, now W.No.9, Dashmesh Nagar Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "the OPs") under Sections 11, 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased a mobile hand set  ASUS Zen Phone 5 for Rs.9,999/- including VAT on 25.11.2014 through online service from Flipkart.com. The mobile hand set was delivered by OP No.1 to the complainant at his residence. OPs also gave one year warranty for mobile hand set and six months warranty for the inbox accessory of the same and issued Tax Invoice No.DEL20141100354157 dated 25.11.2014 in the name of the complainant.   A fault  occurred in the mobile hand set as it started hanging so many times in a day and also automatically restart in running call and mike of the same was also creating problem and due to this, the voice cannot heard clearly and thereafter the said mike of the mobile hand set completely stopped working. The complainant visited OP No.3 along with his friend namely Kamalpreet Singh Bhagrana, for repair of the said mobile hand set. After checking         the mobile hand set the employee of OP No.3 told the complainant that liquid damage found on charging sub board due to moisturizer and demanded Rs.2500/- as repair charges. The complainant asked to the employee of OP No.3 that the said mobile hand set is in warranty period but he totally refused to repair the same and returned the mobile hand set on the ground that the mobile hand set is out of warranty. A job card was also issued by OP No.3 in which it was mentioned that the phone is out of warranty.  Thereafter, the complainant again visited OP No.3 but it refused to repair the mobile hand set and insulted the complainant by using filthy language. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 09.11.2015 but in vain. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.9,999/-, which is the sale price of the mobile hand set and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.3 only as OPs No.1 and 2 are treated as proforma parties.  But OP No.3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   In order to prove his complaint the complainant tendered in evidence copy of invoice Ex. C-1, copy of job sheet Ex. C-2, copy of legal notice Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4, his affidavit Ex. C-5, affidavit of Kamalpreet Singh Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased a mobile hand set phone for Rs.9,999/-, vide invoice No.710925162 dated 25.11.2014(Ex. C-1) through online service from flipkart.com. A fault of hanging many times a day & automatic restart in running call occurred in the mobile hand set and its mike also did not work. The complainant visited OP No.3 the authorized service centre of OP No.2 along with his friend for repair of the hand set. After checking the mobile set, the employee of OP No.3 demanded Rs.2500/- as repair charges. A job card dated 16.09.2015(Ex.C-2) was also issued on which it was mentioned that the phone was out of warranty. But the mobile hand set was in warranty period of one year. The complainant again visited the service centre, but they refused to repair the set without payment legal notice dated 09.11.2015 was also served but no reply was received. In the legal notice refund of sale amount or replacement of the mobile hand set was demanded but nothing happened.

6.                   The Ld. counsel pleaded for the acceptance of the complaint since OPs have failed to repair/rectify the problem free of cost despite it being in the warranty period. The OPs have also deliberately refused to replace the mobile set or refund the amount. The OPs have thus committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony and physical harassment despite knowing the facts that the mobile hand set was found to be defective.

7.                   OP No.3 was given due notice and summons were duly served through Civil Court Chandigarh. OPs No.1 & 2 were treated as proforma parties. OP No.3 did not appear at any stage during the pendency of the complaint. Their non-appearance is nothing but an admission from their own side.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. OP No.3 has time and again failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty period.

9.                   In view of our above discussion we accept the present complaint and find that OP No.3 has committed deficiency in service by not repairing or replacing the said mobile hand set. Hence, we direct OP No.3 as follows:

(i)         To properly repair/rectify the mobile set without charging anything within a period of 15 days.

(ii)        If the problem persists again, then replace the same with a new mobile hand set of the same value or refund  the amount of Rs.9,999/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(iii)       Complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental tension to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1500/-.

10.                 The damages and litigation cost be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulated period, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

11.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:- 23.08.2016

 (Veena Chahal)                       Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member