DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.141 of 29-04-2015
Decided on 03-11-2015
Geeta Devi D/o Ram Kishan R/o 3 Punjab Naval Unit NCC, Deaf and Dumb School, Opposite Lake No.3, Goniana Road, Bathinda now residing at Q.No.508, Beant Singh Nagar, Power House Road, Near Raina T.C.P, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Flipkart, WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Dive Anjur Village, Opposite Diya Petrol Pump, NH-3, Mumbai (Maharashtra), through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2.Cell Point, Authorized Service Centre, Shop No.201, Sunrise Plaza, IInd Floor, Cooper Road, Near Bakewell Bakery, Amritsar, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
3.Randhawa Electronics, Subhash Market, Backside Dhobi Bazaar, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
4.Swipe Telecom LLP, Reality Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Bldg. No.5, Gali No.3, Gate No.1337/1 (New), Nagar Road, Wagholi, Pune-412207, through its M.D/Authorized Signatory.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Ms.Geeta Devi, complainant in person.
For Opposite parties: Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 ex-parte.
Sh.K.S Brar, counsel for opposite party Nos.3 & 4.
ORDER
M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-
1. The complainant Geeta Devi (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Fipkart and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 deals in business of online shops and provides different types of goods/material to its customers throughout India and has launched its website under the name of Flipkart.com, through which any customer can purchase different type of goods at his residential address. In the month of January, 2014, the complainant booked one Swipe MTV Slate Tablet of Rs.12,999/- including taxes etc., manufactured by opposite party No.4 for her personal use and made online payment. Opposite party No.1 sent the abovesaid tablet at the residential address of the complainant at Bathinda vide order bearing invoice dated 31.1.2014. It was delivered to the complainant after about 6-7 days i.e. about 6th-7th February 2014.
3. It is alleged that after about 5-6 months, the abovesaid tablet started creating problems as its touch pad did not work properly. The complainant approached authorized service centre of Swipe company i.e. opposite party No.3, it rectified the defect in the tablet and assured her that there would be no problem in it in future. Opposite party No.3 conveyed the complainant that it is closing its service centre and if any problem occurs in future, she has to contact with company directly.
4. It is further alleged that in the month of January 2015, the abovesaid tablet again started creating problems as its touch pad did not work properly and sometimes some unwanted applications automatically opened in the tablet. The complainant contacted customer care of the company and sent e-mail also, its officials asked her to contact its service centre either at Amritsar or Ludhiana as there is no authorized service centre at Bathinda. In the last month of January 2015, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 within the warranty period of tablet, its officials conducted minor repairs and conveyed her that the tablet is now in OK condition. The complainant requested opposite party No.2 to repair the tablet properly and in case, there is any major problem, then replace the same with new one as it is within the warranty period, but officials of opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that they have rectified the defect properly in the tablet and did not issue her any job sheet. Thereafter the complainant again started using the tablet, but there was same problem in it. The complainant again contacted opposite party No.2 and requested it to repair the tablet but it refused to repair the same on the plea that it is out of warranty. On repeated requests, opposite party No.2 installed the new software in the tablet and charged Rs.300/- vide receipt from the complainant. It was again assured that opposite party No.2 has repaired the tablet properly, but it could not repair the same properly. On 21.3.2015, the complainant again approached opposite party No.2, it conveyed her that the touch pad of the tablet is required to be replaced and she have to pay Rs.3500/-. The complainant repeatedly requested opposite party No.2 to repair/replace the touch paid, free of cost, as the problem is from the beginning, but opposite party No.2 flatly refused for the same. The complainant was left with no option except to agree with opposite party No.2. Accordingly, opposite party No.2 issued a job sheet dated 21.3.2015 and asked the complainant to come after 3-4 days. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, but it conveyed her that the tablet could not be repaired and asked her to collect the same after 10-11 days. Opposite party No.2 retained the tablet with it for about one month and handed over the same to the complainant on 18.4.2015 and charged an amount of Rs.3500/- from her. It was assured that opposite party No.2 has replaced the touch pad and tablet has become like new and has given one month warranty on the replaced touch pad.
5. It is further alleged that the complainant again started using the tablet and found that there remains the abovesaid problems even after replacement of the touch pad. The complainant immediately approached opposite party No.2, but it did not listen to her requests and misbehaved with her and refused to repair the tablet and conveyed her that if she wants to get her tablet repaired properly, she would have to pay Rs.6600/- more to opposite party No.2, which was not acceptable to her.
On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint for seeking directions to opposite parties either to replace the tablet with new one or to refund its price and claimed Rs.2500/- as travelling expenses and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence, this complaint.
6. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.
Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version and written version of opposite party No.2 was received by post.
7. In written version, opposite party No.2 raised the preliminary preliminary objections that the complaint is false and baseless and complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action and is guilty of suppressing true facts and is stopped from filing this complaint. This complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has been dragged into this litigation without any fault.
8. It is pleaded that the tablet was out of warranty period and complainant approached opposite party No.2 first time on 3.3.2015 with the software problem. Opposite party No.2 has done service after taking oral consent from the complainant. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 on 21.3.2015 for another new problem of touch panel and same was replaced with her satisfaction. The allegations made in the complaint are baseless, frivolous devoid of any merit, without any valid cause-of-action against opposite parties. The complainant under the garb of this false complaint wants to blackmail opposite party No.2 to extract money from it. All the remaining averments are denied. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.
9. It is also pleaded that that every customer get one year limited warranty period subject to the terms and conditions contained in the warranty card and warranty on the mobile handset is not absolute but limited to terms and conditions. This limited warranty period does not cover normal wear and tear including without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries and display, transport cost, defects caused by rough handling, bending, compressing, or dropping, water locked etc. or also defects or damage caused by misusage of the products including the use contrary to the instructions provided by the company or other acts beyond control of company or service centre.
10. On merits also, opposite party No.2 controverted all other averments. However, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased one tablet on 21.1.2014 vide invoice dated 31.1.2014. It is also pleaded that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 3.3.2015 for software problem. Opposite party No.2 demanded the bill of the tablet from the complainant and found that it was out of warranty period and same was narrated to her that the tablet in question is out of warranty period and she have to pay the cost of software problem. The complainant was ready to pay the cost of new software and as per her consent, the software was uploaded. Opposite party No.2 told the complainant to check the said problem whether it was removed or not. With the satisfaction of the complainant, opposite party No.2 issued her one cash bill and charged Rs.300/-, which was not covered under the warranty period. Thereafter the complainant left the office of opposite party No.2 with the satisfaction of removal of the said problem. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 on 21.3.2015 vide job sheet No.2910 with new touch penal problem in the tablet. Opposite party No.2 checked the tablet and found that touch panel was broken and need to be changed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3500/- as it was not covered under the warranty period. The complainant was not ready to pay the said charges and demanded again and again free of cost replacement. The complainant left her tablet before the service centre without giving any consent to opposite party No.2 and left out its office. After about one month opposite party No.2 received the consent from the complainant for the replacement of touch pad subject to cost of Rs.3500/-. Opposite party No.2 replaced the touch paid with new one and issued one cash bill of Rs.3500/- dated 18.4.2015 with one month warranty. The complainant was not interested to take the delivery of her tablet. Opposite party No.2 e-mailed the complainant that her tablet is ready and please take the same. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 after 25.4.2015 to take her tablet after checking and verifying the same on the spot and left the office of opposite party No.2 and on 29.4.2015, she filed this complaint.
After controverting all other averments, opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
11. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 in their joint written version also raised legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint; locus-standi and cause-of-action of complaint. It is pleaded that there are no allegations against opposite party Nos.3 and 4 in the complaint except mentioned in Para No.4 of complaint. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have also reproduced the allegations of the complainant detailed in Para No.4 of complaint.
12. It is further added that actually, the complainant brought the tablet in question to opposite party No.3 on 7.3.2014 with the complaint of minor defects. On checking, it was found that there was no technical or manufacturing defect in the tablet and there were some only minor defects of loose battery and loose charging point, the same were completely removed by opposite party No.3 and tablet was working properly and OK. Thereafter the tablet was taken by the complainant on 11.3.2014 being fully satisfied. After that the complainant never approached opposite party Nos.3 and 4 with any complaint. Opposite party No.3 closed its service centre in the month of December 2014. As such, the complainant is not consumer of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. The other legal objections are that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and suppressed and concealed the material and true facts. The complainant is estopped from filing this complaint by her own act, conduct, omission, commission and acquiescence against opposite party Nos.3 and 4. The complainant has not disclosed any cause-of-action against opposite party Nos.3 and 4. The complaint is misuse and abuse of process of law.
On merits also, opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have controverted all other averments and reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above.
14. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.
15. In support of her version, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit, (Ex.C1), photocopy of bills, (Ex.C2, Ex.C4 and Ex.C5); photocopy of job sheet dated 21.3.2015, (Ex.C3); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C6, Ex.C8 to Ex.C13); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C7) and photocopies of photographs, (Ex.C14 & Ex.C15).
16. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Harmander Singh dated 3.9.2015, (Ex.OP3/1) and photocopies of show history detail, (Ex.OP3/2 and Ex.OP3/3)
17. We have heard complainant and learned counsel for party Nos.3 and 4 and have gone through the file carefully.
18. The complainant has reiterated her version as taken up in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the complainant that the material allegations are against opposite party No.2, but it has not come forward to rebut the evidence of the complainant.
19. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party Nos.3 and 4 submitted that as per the complainant herself, she has purchased one tablet in the month of January 2014. The limited warranty is only for one year, which expired in the month of January 2015. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the tablet suffered from any defect within one year. Therefore, the warranty period has already expired and there was no defect during the warranty period. As such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
20. It is further submitted by opposite party Nos.3 and 4 that the complainant pointed out some defects within the warranty period, which were duly removed and history detail, (Ex.OP3/2) proves this fact.
21. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
22. As per the complainant herself, she has purchased one tablet on 31.1.2014, bill, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. Of-course, there is nothing in the bill to show any warranty, but opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have admitted that there was limited warranty of one year. The complainant has not brought any evidence on record to establish that the warranty was for the period of more than one year. Therefore it is to be accepted that the warranty period was for one year only. The complainant has not produced any job sheet or other document to prove that any fault was reported within the warranty period of one year or any repair was got effected within the period of one year. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have brought on record history details, which prove that the services were effected on 5.3.2014 and 11.3.2014. The complainant has mentioned that the tablet started creating problems after 5-6 months, which shows that the defect, if any, occurred in the month of March 2014 was minor in nature and satisfactorily was removed. Of-course, the complainant has stated that opposite party No.3 removed the defect regarding touch pad, but there is no job sheet or other evidence to prove this fact. The complainant has brought on record the bills and job sheets for the months of March 2015 and April 2015 to prove that she has to spend money for getting the tab repaired, but as mentioned above, the warranty of the tablet was for one year. These repairs were got effected after the warranty period. There is nothing to show that any fault was reported to opposite parties within the warranty period and they have failed to provide services as per terms and conditions of the warranty.
23. For the reasons recorded above, the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
24. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.
25. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
03-11-2015
(M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
