Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/239/2020

Ankit Negi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

Randeep Singh

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/239/2020
Date of Institution	:	31.7.2020
Date of Decision	:	7.7.2023

 

Ankit Negi son of Dhir Singh Negi resident of H. No.549/2, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1. Flipkart Center No.1,  Jay Distribution Links, G-12, Prasad Chambers, Basement Chambers compound, Opera House Mumbai 400004 through its authorized signatory.

2^nd address: Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove, Embassy Tech Village outer Ring Road, Devarabeensanahalli village, Bengaluru,  560103 through its authorized signatory.

2.  M/s Luxmi Communications quite office No.1,2^nd floor, opposite Khukhrain Bhawan, Sector 35, Chandigarh through its proprietor.
3. Micromax House 90-A, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015 through its authorized signatory.

2^nd address: Micromax  House 697, Udyog Vihar V Gurgaon, Haryana 122015 through authorized signatory.

4. Micromax Informatics Ltd. 288A, Udyog Vihar, Phase 4, Gurgaon 122015 through its Managing Director.

2^nd address:- Micromax Informatics Limited, Block-A, Plot No.21/14, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi 110028 through its Managing Director.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

 

ARGUED BY		Sh. Randeep Singh, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Atul Sharma, counsel for OP No.1
		OPs No. 2 to 4 exparte.

 

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant purchased one Micromax mobile phone through online portal of OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.999/- on 15.12.2019 having one year warranty.  The said handset was delivered on 22.12.2019. The handset remained in operation for 10 days but thereafter it started creating operational problem i.e. keypad not working. The complainant on the advice of OP No.1 approached OP No.2 being the authorized service centre of OPs No. 3&4 on 3.1.2020. The OP No.2  issued job sheet Annexure C-4 and asked the complainant visit again on 9.1.2020. After visiting twice the OP No.2 handed over the handset to the complainant with the assurance that the problem has been rectified. But to the utter surprise of the complainant the problem of keypad  issue still persisted and feeling dejected the complainant again visited OP No.2. The OP No.2 kept the copy with it  for repair  and told the complainant that they will themselves call him as and when the handset is rectified. It is alleged that despite repeated requested the OP No.2 did not respond and the handset is still lying with it for rectification of the problem.  When the grievance of the complainant was not  redressed the complainant sent legal notice  dated 7.2.2020 but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that it is not the seller of any product but merely an online platform to the buyer and independent third party seller.   It is averred that the answering OP has no liability for the defect in the goods rather the grievance of the complainant should have been against the manufacturer of the product /authorized service centre or the seller for not providing after sale service. The answering OP does not sell directly or indirectly any products on its platform rather all the products are sold by third party sellers who avail online market place service provided by the answering OP. However, it is averred that the complainant himself has failed to avail the 10 days replacement policy.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OPs No. 2 to 4 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide orders dated 19.11.2020, 22.2.2021 and  18.6.2021 respectively they were proceeded against exparte.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The complainant admittedly paid an amount of Rs.999/- for the purchase of the handset in question on 15.12.2019  by booking the same on the portal of OP No.1. In the present case  OP No.2 is the authorized service centre and OPs No. 3&4 are manufacturer of the product in question.  As per Annexure C-3  at page 19 of the paper book when the complainant wrote for the return of the defective product  there is reply on behalf of OP No.1 that the complainant cannot return the item in question as it crossed the  period of return policy. Again at page 21 of the paper book there is message of OP No.l itself that product was delivered on 17.12.2019 and since it has crossed the seller’s 10 days replacement policy period, the seller will not be able to help  the complainant. Annexure C-4  the job sheet issued by OP No.2 in which the issue of keypad has been highlighted. The handset was promised to be given back to the complainant after a week. But vide Annexure C-5  OP No.2 gained time for necessary repairs till 31.1.2020. Despite that the handset is still in the custody of the OP No.2.
8. The stand taken by OP No.1 is that, it is merely an online platform to sell the products by the sellers and directly it is not having any connection with the complainant.
9. After going through the document on record it is abundantly clear that the complainant paid Rs.999/- towards the price of the handset in question through the portal of the OP No.1 and even repeated requests by the complainant for return of the product were replied by the OP No.1 only, thus the OP No.1 cannot run away from its liability on the ground that it is only a platform for selling the products.
10. It is writ large from the record that the  handset in question started giving problem within warranty period and  the same was deposited with OP No.2  for repair but till date the OPs have failed to either repair the handset or replace the same with a new one, which itself shows that there is major defect in the handset in question which could not be repaired till date by the OPs which is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complaint has merit and the same is liable to be allowed. 
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

 

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.999/- to the complainant of the handset  in question  with interest @9% P.A. from the date of issuance of job sheet for the repair of the same Till realization

 

2. to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

 

3. to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member