Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  on the allegations that he purchased mobile phone Google Pixel 2 XL Just Black 64 GB bearing IMI No. 35805084605702 from Flipkart as per order no.OD11475426475288300 dated 21.02.2019 for Rs.37,999/- which was having two years guarantee against any manufacturing defect. Further alleges that Mobile Set in question is not working property as there was some manufacturing defect in it. In this regard, the complainant made complaint with Opposite Party bearing ticket No.GLO102067 through e-mail. Said Mobile Set in question was sent through courier properly and that time mobile was in good condition and there was no physical damage in the Mobile Set in question. Thereafter, the Opposite Party informed the complainant to pay Rs.14436.58 paisa on account of repair charges, since the Mobile Set in question was in guarantee period, hence there was no occasion to pay such hefty amount. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to do the needful, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.   As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Party may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.37,999/- alongwith interest  @ 18% per annum  till its realization and also to pay An amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant and any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the present complaint is misconceived since the complainant has wrongly arrayed Google India, whereas the present proceedings are premised on an erroneous understanding that the product (i.e. Google Pixel Phone) and the services in elation thereto are provided by the Opposite Party. The present complaint is bereft of any material that denotes any cause of action for claiming any relief against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party does not manufacturer or provide the product Google Pixel 64 GB just Black mobile Phone, whereas the product Google Pixel is manufactured by Google LLC. The Opposite Party neither manufacturers nor provides the Google Pixel Product or the after sale services. Further, the same is evident from several documents, which are well within the complainant’s knowledge including on the On-box packaging as well as on the in-box Hardware Warranty terms applicable to mobile handset purchased in India and hence the Opposite Party  is not in a legal position to repair or replace the device.  It is evident from the complaint that  the complainant had approached the ‘Google Help Centre’ of Google LLC. Despite approaching the ‘Google Help Centre’ of Good LLC, the complainant has arrayed Google India as a party to the present complaint. In view of this,  the Opposite Party is neither a necessary nor a proper party for determinations of the controversy in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents  Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Gitanjali Duggal Ex.Op1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Op2 to Ex.Op3 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party   have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file.

7.       The main contention of the complainant is that he purchased mobile phone Google Pixel 2 XL Just Black 64 GB bearing IMI No. 35805084605702 from Flipkart as per order no.OD11475426475288300 dated 21.02.2019 for Rs.37,999/- which was having two years guarantee against any manufacturing defect. Further alleges that Mobile Set in question is not working property as there was some manufacturing defect in it. In this regard, the complainant made complaint with Opposite Party bearing ticket No.GLO102067 through e-mail. Said Mobile Set in question was sent through courier properly and that time mobile was in good condition and there was no physical damage in the Mobile Set in question. Thereafter, the Opposite Party informed the complainant to pay Rs.14436.58 paisa on account of repair charges, since the Mobile Set in question was in guarantee period, hence there was no occasion to pay such hefty amount. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to do the needful, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the present complaint is misconceived since the complainant has wrongly arrayed Google India, whereas the present proceedings are premised on an erroneous understanding that the product (i.e. Google Pixel Phone) and the services in elation thereto are provided by the Opposite Party. The present complaint is bereft of any material that denotes any cause of action for claiming any relief against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party does not manufacturer or provide the product Google Pixel 64 GB just Black mobile Phone, whereas the product Google Pixel is manufactured by Google LLC. The Opposite Party neither manufacturers nor provides the Google Pixel Product or the after sale services. Further, the same is evident from several documents, which are well within the complainant’s knowledge including on the On-box packaging as well as on the in-box Hardware Warranty terms applicable to mobile handset purchased in India and hence the Opposite Party  is not in a legal position to repair or replace the device.  It is evident from the complaint that  the complainant had approached the ‘Google Help Centre’ of Google LLC. Despite approaching the ‘Google Help Centre’ of Good LLC, the complainant has arrayed Google India as a party to the present complaint. Perusal of the record shows that  the complainant has failed to prove on record that he ever purchased the Mobile Set in question from the Opposite Party or the Opposite Party ever promised to give any services to the product in question to the complainant. Moreover,  as discussed above,   the product Google Pixel is manufactured by Google LLC and this fact is evident from documents ncluding on the On-box packaging as well as on the in-box Hardware Warranty terms applicable to mobile handset purchased in India and hence the Opposite Party  is not in a legal position to repair or replace the device.  It is not disputed that the  complainant had approached the ‘Google Help Centre’ of Google LLC, but he has not arrayed the said company as party.

8.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the  complainant has failed to produce or prove on record that he ever purchased the Mobile Set in question from the Opposite Party or ever hired the services of any kind with regard to product in question of the Opposite Party.  Hence, the  instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to get redressal of his grievance against the proper party, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left  to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

9.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2022.