Haryana

Jind

CC/15/59

Subham Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Manoj Kumar Gupta

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 46 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 10.4.2015
   Date of final order: 14.6.2016

Subham Gupta son of Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta, resident of house No.1, scheme No.6 Gandhi Nagar, Jind (Haryana).

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Flipkart, registered office WS detail services private limited, Ozone manay tech park No.56/18B block, 9th floor, Garvebhavipalya house road, Banglore560068 Karnataka (India) through its authorized signatory.
PC Support Centre –CS Tower, shop No.32,33, Ashoka Mall opposite Hotel Sun & Sand, Bund Garden road, Pune-41001 through its authorized signatory.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Manoj Gupta Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased a mobile set MI3(Metallic grey) EMI No.865072028464322 for a sum of Rs.13,999/- from opposite party No.1 through internet booking vide order ID No. OD40722045759. The opposite party No.1 
            Subham Gupta Vs. Flipkart etc.
                    …2…
sent the above said  mobile, warranty card, other requisite documents along with bill dated 22.7.2014  at the address of complainant at Jind. The above said mobile was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase. The mobile was working properly for few months and in the month of February, 2015 the mobile had become totally dead and stopped the functioning. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 for removing the defects of the mobile but the opposite party No.2 refused to repair and remove the defect of mobile of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 23.2.2015 through his counsel Sh. M.K. Gupta Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.13,999/-,a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 has put in appearance and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and also taken the objection that the complainant had not been arrayed manufacture of the product as a party and only on this score alone complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party is not the manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant and has no knowledge to ascertain whether the   mobile is defective or has manufacturing defects. The warranty along with warranty terms 
            Subham Gupta Vs. Flipkart etc.
                    …3…
and conditions of the product is also extended by the manufacturer and their authorized service centre and not by answering opposite party. It is the sole duty of the manufacturer  or their authorized service centre to remove the defects, if any to the entire satisfaction of the consumer. The answering opposite party is only dealer in this complaint. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.     Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 24.9.2015. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,   legal notice dated 23.2.2015 Ex. C-2, copy of customer information slip/ELS form Ex. C-3, postal receipt Ex. C-4, copy of letter dated 9.3.2015 Ex. C-5, copy of  bill Ex. C-6 and copy of warranty statement Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Mrs Anushree Saksena, Authorized Signatory Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard Ld. counsels of both the parties and perused the pleading of the parties as well as documents placed on the file. As per Ex.C-6 copy of invoice dated 22.7.2014 the complainant had purchased the mobile in question for Rs.13,999/- from Flipkart WS Detail Services private Ltd. The complainant also relied upon the job 
            Subham Gupta Vs. Flipkart etc.
                    …4…
sheet/customer information slip  where it is mentioned in the job sheet that problem in the hand set “automatically screen cracked in the pocket”. But it is unsigned and cannot be consider authentic  document, so we cannot relied upon this document. It is clear that there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties because the screen has been cracked by the complainant due to wear and tear use. The complainant himself admitted in the complaint that service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 has demanded Rs.7500/- from the complainant  for rectifying the problem of the mobile in question. It means the opposite parties have rightly demanded the above said amount for removing the defect of the mobile. The complainant has not filed any expert report alleging that the screen of the mobile in question cracked due to manufacturing defect.  From the perusal of the document warranty card Ex. C-7 it is clear that the company has given limited warranty of the mobile set. The column No.4 of the warranty card is as under:- “This warranty does not cover the following cases:- Any damage occurs in/on outer surface of product including but not limited to crack, dents are scratches on the exterior cases, screens, camera lenses, buttons and other attachment.  In this way, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, opposite parties cannot be held liable for deficient services.
6.    In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case against the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no 

            Subham Gupta Vs. Flipkart etc.
                    …5…
order as to cost.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 14.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        Subham Gupta Vs. Flipkart etc.
                    
Present:  Sh. Manoj Gupta Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
         

              Arguments heard. To come up on 14.6.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  9.6.2016

Present:  Sh. Manoj Gupta Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
         
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  14.6.2016