Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/357/2018

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	357/2018
Date of Institution	:	21.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	07.02.2019

 

                                 

                    

 

Ravinder Kumar s/o Late Sh.S.D.Madan r/o H.No.131, Sector 55, Chandigarh                     

                           ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Flipkart, Regd. Office Konde Products & Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No.1004, Regus Brigade, IRV Centre, 9^th & 10^th Floor, Nallurhalli Road, While Fields, Bangalore (Karnataka)-560066.

 

2. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF  Cyber Green, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122022 (Haryana)

 

3. Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO No.26 (First Floor), Sector 20-D, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

Ms.Janak Madanm, Authorized Agent of the complainant    

              Sh.Rohit Kumar, Advocate for OP No.1.

              Defence of OPs No.2 & 3 struck off.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.        Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a mobile phone Moto E-4 online through OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2 vide invoice 14.05.2018 for Rs.7,199/- having warranty of one year.  Since, the mobile phone in question was giving constant problems and, therefore, he filed online return request on 24.05.2018 to OP No.1, but it was cancelled.  He again filed return request on 25.05.2018 but the same was closed without assigning any reason.  On 27.05.2018, the technician of OP No.1 could not resolve the issue and he advised the complainant to approach the service center i.e. OP No.3. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP No.3 on 31.05.2018 who diagnosed the problem in the mobile phone by updating the software.   However, the mobile phone was still not working and was having numerous problems and, therefore, he approached OP No.3 on 01.06.2018. he also sent an e-mail to OP No.1 for replacement/refund but they showed their inability to refund/replace the mobile phone after 10 days of its sell. According to the complainant, he sent e-mails for return on 24.05.2018, 25.05.2018, 27.05.2018 and even on 01.06.2018.  It has further been averred that on 04.06.2018 he tried to collect the mobile phone from OP No.3 who informed him that the mobile phone is having hardware problem and will take more time to resolve the problem.  The complainant also made complaint through e-mails on 5^th, 6^th and 13^th June, 2018 to OP No.2 for replacement /refund  of the price of the mobile handset but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.        In its written statement, OP No.1-M/s Konde Products and Services Pvt. Ltd. has pleaded that it is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. It has further been pleaded that there is no relation of principal and agent between Motorola and it.  It has further been pleaded that any grievance which the complainant has, is only against the manufacturer or with the service provider who could rectify the problem in the product as they are the technical expert of the product in question.  It has further been pleaded that no complaint was raised with it rather the issue was raised with Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., which is an independent company. 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.
3.        Defence of OPs No.2 and 3 was struck off vide order dated 10.10.2018 as they failed to file the reply and evidence despite availing numerous opportunities.
4.        We have heard the agent of the complainant, learned counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.
5.        After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter.  From the e-mails placed on record, it is revealed that the mobile phone in question started giving problem from the very beginning of its purchase and even the complainant made a return request at the e-mail address i.e. www.flipkart.com provided at the bottom of the invoice dated 14.05.2018 issued by M/s Konde Products and Services Pvt. Ltd.   but it did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant within the replacement policy and, as such, the complainant had to use the mobile phone in question.
6.        Since the mobile phone in question was giving constant problems, he even approached the service center i.e. OP No.3 for rectification of the defects on 31.05.2018 and 01.06.2018 and tried to collect the mobile set on 04.06.2018 but it was not returned on the ground that the same is having some hardware problem and it will take more time to resolve the problem. Subsequently, he even made a complaint to OP No.2 through e-mail on 5^th & 6^th June, 2018 for its replacement/refund but to no effect.
7.        During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant was also directed vide order dated 18.12.2018 to collect the mobile phone from OP No.3 and to report about its functioning. Accordingly, he collected the mobile phone from OP No.3 and reported that the same is still not working properly. 
8.        Needless to mention here that the complainant had already given a long hand to the OPs to replace/repair the mobile phone, in question, but to no effect. The complainant had spent Rs.7,199/- from his pocket to purchase the mobile phone in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the OPs and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by them. 
9.        It is also relevant to mention here that OPs No.2 and 3 preferred not to file the written reply and evidence to rebut the allegations made in the complaint despite availing numerous opportunities and as such their defence was ordered to be struck off. Thus, we have no hesitation to conclude that the grievance of the complainant made in the complaint is a genuine one. Finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.
10.        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.7,199/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

11.        This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @ 9% per  annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. The complainant is also directed to handover the mobile phone in question along with its accessories to the OPs on receipt of the awarded compensation.
12.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.02.2019 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER