Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/53

Kedar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Inderpal Vohra

20 Feb 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 53 of 23.07.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    20.02.2019

 

Kedar Nath, aged about 64 years, son of Sh. Ram Saran, Resident of House No.55, Street No.5, Piara Singh Colony, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Flipkart through Consulting Rooms Pvt. Limited, indospace FWS industrial Park Pvt Limited building No.3A, Village Luhari Pataudi Kulana Road, MDR 132 Post, New Delhi.
2. Sysnet Global Technologies Private Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 146-147, Sector 34 A, Chandigarh.   

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Inderpal Vohra, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

O.P. No.2 ex-parte 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Sh. Kedar Nath son of Ram Saran, resident of House No.55, Street No.5, Piara Singh Colony, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar, through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2  to replace the printer in question with the new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of   mental agony, harassment; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses; any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit may kindly be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the printer online for a sum of Rs.6299/- through Flipkart i.e. OP No.1 and while purchasing the same, he received the invoice and the bill. After purchase, the printer in question was installed in his office at Near Kalyan Cinema Ropar by the complainant but during usage, it was not working properly and paper used to get struck in the same and the same was not able to release the paper properly. The information regarding the said problem was given to the customer care number and then a service provider had come to see the same and after noting down on service card reported that he was unable to solve the problem and left back. Thereafter, a mail was received from the company to the effect that the amount of Rs.5464.14 is to be paid more for rectifying the problem. Hence, this complaint.  
3. On notice, O.P. No.1, appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; that there has been no dispute contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the answering O.P. is not the manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant and has no facility or knowledge/technical knowhow to ascertain whether the product in question in the present complaint is defective or has manufacturing defects; that the OP No.1 is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced on its own. The OP No.1 is engaged in selling of goods manufactured and produced by others; that the main grievance of the complainant relates to after sales and service issue in the product, where OP No.1 has no role to play, hence the OP No.1 cannot be impleaded as a necessary party in the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that product in issue was purchased by the complainant on 26.2.2018 and the same was duly delivered to him in sealed packet. OP NO.1 is only seller of the product in question and it is ultimately the responsibility of the manufacturer and their service centre, to provide the after sales services. Despite knowing the fact, complainant wrongly impleaded the answering O.P. into the array of parties. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On notice, none has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.2.2019.
5. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has closed his evidence vide separate statement.  
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7.  Complainant counsel Sh. Inderpal Vohra, argued that Kedar Nath purchased printer for the amount of Rs.6299/- through flipkart i.e. OP No.1 online manufactured by OP No.2. The complainant purchased the printer on 26.2.2018 then installed in his office and the printer was not working properly. He requested to OP No.1 as well as through mail to the company and he received mail for the costs of Rs.5464.14. Complainant had been visiting to the OP No.1 but no result and finally filed the present complaint. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.  
8. OP No.1 appeared through Advocate, Gagandeep Singh, who argued on the lines of the written reply. He firstly pointed out qua the preliminary objections that the deal qua the purchase of the printer is from OP No.2 and OP No.1 has only supplied the printer in question. His services are rendered only on commission basis for the supplied of the goods. Learned counsel then referred the reply qua the purchase and then he advised the complainant to contact OP NO.2 who is the manufacturer. By referring the plea, prayed to dismiss the complaint qua OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention that despite issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and proceeded against ex-parte.
9. Complainant approached OP No.2 who is the manufacturer and deposited the price then OP No.2 supplied the printer to the complainant through flipkart i.e. OP No.1. Delivery given by the OP No.1 to the complainant at the given address. Moreso, qua the sale/purchase contesting OP not disputed. Flipkart receipt is Ex.C1. So, it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
10. Now the question arises whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. As discussed in earlier part of the order, complainant Kedar Nath purchased printer online and received plea from OP NO.1 dated 26.2.2018 with the payment of Rs.6299/-. When the printer started creating trouble then requested the O.Ps. through mail. Complainant placed on file, firstly his sworn affidavit i.e. Ex.CW1/A, receipt qua purchase Ex.C1 dated 26.2.2018. Ex.C2 is the complaint through HP Care Centre, which is not denied by the O.Ps. Ex.C3 is correspondence between the complainant and the O.Ps, in which O.Ps. recorded the observations as under:-

“With reference to above case ID, we would like to inform you that our engineer visited to diagnose & repair the product.

“During diagnosis, it was found that the printer failure is caused due to the Disk encoder PCB, paper sensor cable, carriage motor cable, PF motor cable & Carriage encoder strip rodent damage. In view of the same, We regret to inform you that we are unable to replace the part under warranty as per HP limited warranty statement”

On the basis of above report, O.Ps. demanded Rs.5464.14. Then the correspondence is Ex.C4 to Ex.C6. Complainant also relied upon Ex.C7, which is quotation of Sysnet Global Technologies Private Limited dated 21.4.2018 vide which O.Ps. demanded Rs.4630.63 along with GST Rs.833.51 total Rs.5464.14 for repair. Ex.C8 is again quotation indicating the amount of Rs.5464.14. To rebut the evidence of complainant, OP No.1 only placed on file affidavit, which is even not a tender in evidence. So no document on the file from the side of O.P. No.1. 

11. Appreciating the documentary evidence as well as arguments advanced by the contesting parties, this forum is of the considered opinion that complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps as he purchased the printer on 26.2.2018 with the payment of Rs.6299/- within one month from the date of purchase, it started giving trouble and then O.Ps. demanded on mail Rs.5464.14.  So, the deficiency is apparent and the complaint deserves to be allowed. 
12.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. jointly and severally to replace the printer in question with the new one within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled Rs.6299/- along with interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 26.2.2018 with cost/compensation of Rs.5000/-.

11. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.20.02.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER