Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/712/2018

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	712/2018
Date of Institution	:	13.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	11.06.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Paramjit Singh s/o Sh.Hakam Singh r/o H.No.220, Dadu Majra, Chandigarh, Near Gugga Mari.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Flipkart, 202, DBS Business Centre, FF World Trade Tower,  Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi, India.

 

2. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., Blocks 86 & 88, Acorm, Logistics and Industrial Complex, located at Dive Anjur Village, Opposite Dive Petrol Pump, NH-3, Mumbai, Nasik.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:

 

Complainant in person.

Sh.Anil Kumar, Adv., Proxy for Sh.Rohit Chandel, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Aman Vashisth, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The facts of the case, in brief, as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased a mobile phone make Asus from the OPs by paying Rs.8,998/- through his credit card  vide Invoice dated 27.10.2018. The OPs alleged to have given replacement guarantee of 10 days from the date of its purchase.  The complainant started facing problem of software and sensor in the mobile phone within 4 days of its purchase and as such he gave complaint to the OPs on 10^th day of its purchase as he was under the impression that the same would rectify itself after sometime but the same persisted for the coming days. According to the complainant, he gave three complaints to the OPs and the executive of the OPs told him that he could remove the problem of hardware only but the mobile phone was having some software problem.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that  the role/involvement of OP No.1 is an intermediary only who provides a marketplace to the sellers and buyers of product to facilitate the transactions electronic commerce for various goods by and between the respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods.  It does not directly or indirectly sells any product on flipkart platform and rather all the products on flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers who avail of the online market place services provided by it, on terms decided by the respective sellers only.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant never approached it for redressal of the alleged grievance.  It has further been pleaded that the grievance is with respect of the alleged defect in the product and after sales services are provided by the manufacturer of the product or its authorized centre and it being a mere online intermediary cannot be held liable for provided warranty or after sales services to the complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.2 has admitted that the complainant has placed the order of the mobile handset through the website and the same was delivered to him.  It has been pleaded that they are not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced on its own and rather they are engaged in selling of goods manufactured or produced by others.  It has further been pleaded that they have nothing to do with the manufacturing /technical defect of the product as they are not manufacturer and nor the service provider of the product in question.  It has further been pleaded that the product worked fine till December, 2018 for almost two months and thereafter some problem occurred and as it cannot be said that they have sold the defective product.   It has further been pleaded that the liability to provide after sale services does not lay upon them as they are neither the manufacturer nor the authorized service center. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         It is established from the invoice placed on record by the complainant that he purchased the product in question through the website of OP No.1 from OP No.2- Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd.  The grouse of the complainant is that he approached the OPs within 10 days of the replacement policy but they did not bother to replace the mobile phone despite having the knowledge that the product is defective one. 
7.         It may be stated here that OP No.1 took contradictory pleas in its written reply as in para 2 of the reply on merits that they have stated that the complainant had never approached it for redressal of his grievance whereas in para 16 of the preliminary objections of the reply, it has been stated that whenever he approached it for redressal of his grievances, he was always attended to and support was provided as possible being an intermediary and for after sales issues he was asked to contact the manufacturer or its service centre. We have no hesitation to believe the version of the complainant that he approached OP No.1 within the replacement policy of the product because the mobile phone started giving problem within 4 days of its purchase but it did not pay any heed to his genuine request. The OPs could very easily change the defective mobile phone under the replacement policy instead of leaving the complainant to use the defective mobile phone.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

[i]            To replace the mobile phone in question with a new one of the same model and configurations or in the alternative to refund its price to the complainant, in case, the same model is not available.

 [ii]           To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

 [iii]          To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No. (i) and (ii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides litigation costs. The OPs are at liberty to collect the mobile phone alongwith its accessories from the complainant after payment of the awarded amount.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11/06/2019

 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER