DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.07 of 2016
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 08-01.2016
DATE OF ORDER: 31-10-2016
Sombir Singh son of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of village Ramupura (Baliali) Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Flipkart.com Registered Office: WS Retail Services Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park No. 56/18 ‘B’ Block 9th Floor, Garvebhavipalya Hous Raod Bangalore-560068 throughits authorized signatory.
- Saini Mobile Point Shop No. 6, Ghanshyam Market, Fancy Chowk, Bhiwani through its authorized signatory.
- Karbon Mobiles D-170, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi-110020 through its authorized signatory.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Hitesh Khurana, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
None for OP no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile handset of Karbonn Smart A50s (Black) through online system from OP no. 1 vide order ID No. OD40816157757 dated 16.08.2014 and aforesaid mobile was received by the complainant at his proposed address at Bhiwani for a sum of Rs. 2699/- including tax to the delivery man who deliver the item to the complainant. It is alleged that at the time of giving delivery by the authorized representative, it was given assurance that if there is any issue with product quality in that case 100% moneyback shall be made to the purchaser. It is alleged that the complainant enjoyed the said product for a period of 6 months but after six month, the mobile set started to give several internal problems and he contacted with the OP no. 3 telephonically as well as online system. It is alleged that the complainant visited many a times with the OP no. 2 as well as on line complaint with OP no. 3 and customer care number with a request to rectify the defect or to replace the mobile and further requested to refund the cost of the mobile but to no avail. It is alleged that he served a legal notice dated 30.07.2015 but the matter is put off on one pretext or other. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has wrongly furnished the name of the answering respondent as Flipcart.com. It is submitted that the answering respondent is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced on its own. He further submitted that the mobile handset in question was sold to the complainant by WS Retail Services Private Limited online. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Written statement was not filed on behalf of Ops no. 2 & 3 despite various opportunities.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant and counsel for OP no. 1.
6. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the OP no. 2 has not deliver the mobile handset to the complainant after repairs, which was delivered by the complainant to OP no. 2 vide job sheet dated 09.02.2015 Annexure C-2.
7. Learned counsel for OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the Flipcart. Com has been wrongly impleaded as party. He further submitted that the mobile handset in question was sold to the complainant by WS Retail Services Private Limited online. The said mobile handset carry manufactures warranty. The mobile handset in question has been duly repaired by the OP no. 2 but the complainant has not taken the delivery of the same.
8. Admittedly, the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant online from OP no. 1. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his various allegations mentioned in the compliant. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant. We direct the Ops no. 2 & 3 to deliver the mobile handset in working condition to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation cost to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Ops no. 2 & 3 within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. The complainant is directed to approach OP no. 2 to take the delivery of his mobile handset and the execution of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:.31-10-2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member