| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.485 of 19-09-2016 Decided on 17-11-2017 Gagandeep Bansal aged about 37 years S/o Bhagwan Dass Bansal R/o #2835, Street No.1, Phase-1, Vishal Nagar, Bathinda ........Complainant Versus 1.Flipkart, WS Retail service Private Limited, Khasra No.435, Road No.4, Lal Dora Ext., Mahipur Delhi-110037, through its Manager/Prop./Director. 2.Lenovo, Corporate Office: Vatika Business Park, 1st Floor, Sohna Road, Tower A, Sector 49, Gurgaon–122018, through its Manager/Director 3.M/s Singh Infosystems, 40 feet, Aggarwal Colony, Bhatti Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Prop. (Deleted) .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Satwir Singh, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Vikas Kumar, Advocate. For opposite party No.2: Sh.M.L Mukhi, Advocate. Opposite party No.3: Deleted. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Gagandeep Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Flipkart and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Lenovo A7000-a, black colour mobile handset for Rs.8100/- vide bill dated 23.6.2015 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2 with one year warranty. He made payment to opposite party No.1 through online . Opposite party No.3 is the service centre of opposite party No.2. The mobile handset was delivered to the complainant at Bathinda. It is alleged that just after purchase of the mobile handset, the complainant started facing problems in it as its speaker was not working as per the specifications of opposite party No.2 and its LCD was also not working properly and its colours were not as per the specification of opposite party No.2. The complainant made telephone calls to opposite party Nos.1 and 2, but they did not pay any heed. He made the complaint with opposite party No.3 on 8.4.2016 with the problem of speakers and LCD. On 20.4.2016, it was conveyed to the complainant by opposite party No.3 that the speakers of the mobile handset were changed and LCD was not received by opposite party No.3 from the office of opposite party No.2. As and when, opposite party No.3 will receive the LCD, it will be changed accordingly. It is further alleged that the speakers were also not working properly. The complainant was informed by opposite party No.3 that the speakers changed are of old model. They are being changed for the time being and as and when speakers and LCD of this model will be received by opposite party No.3, the same will be replaced. On 25.4.2016, the complainant approached opposite party No.3, it changed the speakers of the mobile handset, but the problem was not resolved. Opposite party No.3 also conveyed the complainant that opposite party No.2 is not ready to replace LCD with new one and speakers are not received from opposite party No.2 of the same model. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for replacement of the mobile handset with new one. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for mental and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.3 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary submissions that its name has been wrongly mentioned as Flipkart, WS Retail Seergice Private Limited whereas the correct name is WS Retail Services Private Limited. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bangalore. It is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. It is registered reseller on the website 'Flipkart.Com'. It sells products of other manufacturers, traders, etc. under their respective trade marks through the website. It is pleaded that the complaint is an abuse of due process of law. The complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts. Opposite party No.1 is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced on its own. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer/importer of the mobile handset. There is no relation of principal and agent between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. The entire grievance of the complainant relates to the defects in the product and `after sale service' issue post the product's satisfactory used by him for nearly about 10 months. The liability for defect in the product or after sales service issues rest with the manufacturer only. The complainant is well aware of the fact that opposite party No.1, being merely a reseller of the product, cannot remove the defect in the product, if any. As such, the complainant has rightly approached opposite party No.3 i.e. authorized service centre of the manufacturer. The product was received by the complainant through opposite party No.2. The warranty booklet was also sent with the product. As such, opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable for defect in the product. The averments made in the complaint do not point out any specific grievance against opposite party No.1. There is no dispute contemplated between the complainant and opposite party No.1. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the product through online shopping from opposite party No.1. All other averments of the complainant are denied. Opposite party No.1 has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary submissions and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the preliminary submissions that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. It has honoured the warranty claims and repaired the mobile handset free of cost. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merits. On merits, it is unfolded that all the Lenovo products come with one year warranty from the date of purchase. The complainant logged the service call on 8.4.2016 (almost 10 months from the date of purchase) for speaker issue for which the speaker was replaced and call was closed. The mobile handset was handed over to the complainant on 25.4.2016. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 13.2.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of service record, (Ex.C2); photocopies of invoices, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Swati Singh dated 26.4.2017, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavits of Shankar Narain Prakesh dated 30.12.2016, (Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/5); photocopy of resolution, (Ex.OP2/2); photocopy of service record, (Ex.OP2/3); photocopy of service report, (Ex.OP2/4) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken up in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that some facts are not in dispute. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2. He has alleged that the mobile handset was not working properly. The service record, (Ex.C2) proves that the complainant made complaint on 8.4.2016 regarding speaker and LCD problems. Of-course, opposite party No.2 has alleged that the mobile handset was returned after due repair, but the complainant himself has made remarks that the service is not proper and there is no solution of LCD. Opposite party No.2 has also tendered into evidence service record, (Ex.OP2/3). This document proves that the complaint was regarding speaker and LCD issues. This document also proves that only speaker was replaced and problem regarding LCD was not solved. Therefore, this document belies the version of opposite party No.2 that the the mobile handset was properly repaired. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands proved. Opposite party No.2 is required to do needful. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile handset with new one. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has reiterated his stand as taken in the written version and detailed above. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that the complaint is abuse of process of law. The mobile handset was purchased on 23.6.2015 with one year warranty. Of-course, the complainant made complaint on 8.4.2016, but there is no other complaint within the warranty period of one year. The first complaint was made on 8.4.2016 i.e. after about 10 months from the date of purchase. This fact also proves that the complainant has used the mobile handset without any difficulty. In case, there was any manufacturing defect, the complainant was certainly not able to use the mobile handset for this period of 10 months. He himself has relied upon service report, (Ex.C2). As per this document, only issue raised by him regarding repair of speaker phone and it has already been solved. The complaint be dismissed. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. It is proved on record that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset, manufactured by opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. The averment of the complainant is that the mobile handset was not working properly and he repeatedly lodged the complaints. Only complaint produced by the complainant is dated 8.4.2016 i.e. about 10 months after purchase. The complainant and opposite party No.2 have placed on record service record, (Ex.C2 and Ex.OP2/3). In the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that speaker and LCD were causing problems. Of-course, in Ex.C2, there is no reference of LCD issue, but Ex.OP2/3 produced by opposite party No.2 proves that the complainant also raised the LCD issue. This document also proves that only speaker was replaced. The complainant has also given remarks regarding LCD issue. This fact proves that he has raised the issue regarding LCD also. His remarks and report prove that LCD issue was not solved. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service. Now, question is regarding relief for which the complainant is entitled to. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset with new one by alleging manufacturing defect in it. He has used the mobile handset for about 10 months without any difficulty. There is no evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the mobile handset with new one. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per warranty terms and conditions. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 17-11-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
