Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/57/2019

Kamal Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gionee India HQ - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Jeet Singh

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/57/2019
Date of Institution	:	05/02/2019
Date of Decision	:	26/10/2022

 

Kamal Kumar son of Sh. Sohan Lal, aged about 32 years, resident of House No.1609/2, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh-160030.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Gionee Head Office, Jaina India Pvt. Ltd. D-170, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.
2. Amazon India Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Maleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055 (Karnataka) through its Regional Manager.
3. AKS Telecom-Chandigarh, Quite Office No.1, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh-160022 through its owner.
4. Shiv Enterprises, Prathamesh Complex, Building No.H, Opp. Vatika Restaurant, Mumbai-Nasik Highway No.3, Bhiwandi By pass road, Bhiwandi 421302 (Maharastra) through its proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Vikram Jeet Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	OP No.1 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Chetan Gupta, Counsel for OP No.2.
	:	OP No.3 ex-parte.
	:	OP No.4 ex-parte.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased Gionee A1 black colour mobile phone, but he got issued bill in name of his cousin Sh.Ravinder Singh. The mobile phone in question was manufactured by the OP No.1, on 19.06.2017 placed with the OP No.2 and sold by the OP No.4 at the prize of Rs.16,800/- (Annexure C-1). As per complainant, after 2/3 months of purchase, the aforementioned phone stopped getting charged as well as touch pad was not working. Consequently, the complainant approached the OP No.3 in order to get his abovementioned mobile phone repaired. Therefore, the OP No.3 kept the mobile phone in question with them and issued a service job sheet on 20.08.2018 to the complainant and it was assured that the phone in question will be repaired and promised to hand over the same to the complainant within 10 days (Annexure C-2). The OP No.3 charged Rs.250/- on 3/4 occasions from the complainant on the pretext of charging wire.  However, till 21.11.2018 neither the mobile phone was repaired nor any sufficient reasons were given to the complainant regarding the status of the said mobile phone. Eventually, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to replace the handset, but to no success. Eventually, a legal notice dated 12.08.2018 was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, this Complaint.   
2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP-1 seeking its version of the case. OP-1 appeared, but failed to file evidence in the form of affidavit despite several opportunities. However, OP-1 failed to file the same. Despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 06.01.2021.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case, as per Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., the complainant has wrongly approached this Hon’ble Forum against it on a misunderstanding that he is a consumer of it. It is submitted that the present issues raised by the complainant pertain to the alleged technical defects as detected in the product. The product is neither sold nor manufactured by it. In addition, thereof, no services have been provided by it. The role of it is limited to that of a facilitator and not the seller/ manufacturer, and it is neither liable nor responsible for any actions or inactions of the seller/manufacturer nor any breach of conditions representations or warranties by the seller or manufacturer of the product. However, it is submitted that it is only online ecommerce market platform where buyers and sellers transact to purchase goods and services. It is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the complaint. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, hence OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP-3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP-3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 04.04.2019.
5.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP-4 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP-4 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 04.04.2019.
6.     Despite giving opportunities to file rejoinder and rebuttal evidence on behalf of complainant failed to file the same. Hence opportunity to file rejoinder and rebuttal evidence on behalf of complainant was closed.
7.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and gone through the record of the case.
9.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present case is that the handset in question one get defected within the warranty period. The OPs did not repair the same and the handset in their own possession till date. Despite repeated requests by the complainant for the repair and thereafter for replacement were not accepted by the OPs. Complainant served legal notice dated 24.11.2018 Annexure C-3, which was neither replied nor the genuine grievance of the complainant was redressed.
10.     The stand taken by the OP No.2 (Amazon India Brigade Gateway), is that, it is neither the seller of nor the manufacturer of the product in question hence not liable for any deficiency in service in the present case. Further it has been contended that it is online ecommerce market platform where buyers and sellers transact to purchase goods and services. Hence not liable for any kind of deficiency in service.
11.     Significantly, OP No.1, 3, 4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.1, 3, 4 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OP No.1, 3, 4 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
12.     After going through evidence on record it is abundantly clear that the handset in question was purchased through OP No.2 from OP No.4 which is manufactured by OP No.1 (Annexure C-2), the job sheet dated 20.08.2018 is showing that the handset in question was given to the OP No.3 for the necessary services within warranty period. Various personal requests and the reminders by the complainant to the OPs for the needful was proved to be failed. Even the legal notice Annexure C-3, was not replied by any of the parties.                       Undoubtedly, OP No.2 is the online platform trusting which the complainant paid his hard earned money to buy the product in question manufactured by OP No.1. But the same stopped working within the warranty period. OP No.3 failed to provide proper after sale services.

         Hence, the act of the OPs for selling substandard product to the complainant and thereafter non-providing proper services during the proceedings of the present case and keeping and handset in their possession till date, non-appearance of OP Nos.1, 3 & 4, proves deficiency in services and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.   

13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund an amount of ₹16,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

26/10/2022			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member