Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 131.
Instituted on : 28.03.2018.
Decided on : 13.05.2019.
Arun Kumar son of Sh. Tasbir Singh, age 23 year, Resident of Village Brahmanwas, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Manager, Global Mobile Care, Near Sun Flag Hospital, Opp. C.R. College, Dev Colony, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
2. Amazon Wholesale India Private Limited, Unit No. 504, 5th Floor, Selkon Rasvilas Building, Plot No. D-1, Saket District Center, New Delhi-110017.
3. Huawei Tele Communications (i) Co. Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Tower A, Spaze I-Tech Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.J.C.Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties No. 1 and 3 already exparte.
Sh. Sandeep Raj, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had purchased a Huawei Mobile Model 7X online from the respondent No. 2 vide bill dated 08.01.2018 for Rs.13,000/-. It is alleged that after 12 days of purchasing of the mobile in question, the jack of said mobile has become defective. On 20.01.2018, the complainant approached to respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 took his mobile phone for repair but on 24.02.2018, when complainant approached to respondent, then they returned the mobile in question to the complainant without any repairing and issued a job sheet bearing No. 180207HDEL1200002. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 did not repair the mobile in question properly. It is further alleged that during the warranty period, the respondents did not rectify the problem in the mobile in question. The complainant again visited to the respondents time and again and requested to repair the mobile in question, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 13,000/- towards the cost of mobile and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the complainant purchased the mobile in question from the respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the opposite party is not directly involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. That ASSPL is only a facilitator and provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. Therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. That the mobile in question is sold by a third party seller and the same can be seen from the invoice attached by the complainant itself. It is further submitted that the dispute in hand pertains to manufacturing defect and it is the seller or manufacturer who can resolve the grievances of the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No. 1 received back duly served and notice issued to opposite party No. 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, opposite parties No. 1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.05.2018 passed by this Forum.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and has closed his evidence on dated 12.12.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.02.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 04.01.2018(inadvertently the same is written as 08.01.2018 in the complaint) for a sum of Rs.12999/-. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the mobile in question was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and the complainant deposited the mobile set with the opposite party on 20.01.2018 and 24.02.2018, but the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties. On the other hand, the contention of ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 is that the answering opposite party No.2 provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. Therefore, the sellers and manufacturer themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. However, opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile set stands proved. As such opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the price of mobile set Rs.13000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.03.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
8. Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
