West Bengal

Bankura

CC/114/2023

Swadhin Dhabal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Infinix Technologies Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Suman Patra

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.114/2023

          Date of Filing:  08/12/2023

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                                     Ld. President      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui                    Ld. Member

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocates Suman Patra / Jayanta Kumar Mukherjee

For the O.P.1: None

For the O.P.2 & 3 : Ld. Advocate Rupa Rani Mallick

Swadhin Dhabal,S/O-Goutam Dhabal,R/O-Jambuni,Jagadalla,P.S&Dist-Bankura,P.O-Jagadalla,Pin-722146

Opposite Party

1.Infinix Technologies Pvt Ltd,N-3 Prathamesh Co-operative,Housing SOC Veer Savarkar Marg,Prabhadevi,Mumbai,Maharashtra,Pin-400025,India

2.BuzzRetail India Private Ltd,Registered office at Tagore Garden,New Delhi,Pin-110027                                                                      3.Flipkart India Pvt Limited,Vaishnavi Summit,Ground Floor,7^th Main,80 Feet Road,3^rd Block,Koramangala Industrial Layout,Bangalore KA560034 IN (Proforma Opposite Party)

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                      FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT                                                                                                                                                           

Order No.11

Dated:19-09-2024 

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument/written argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he booked an order for purchase of a Laptop (Infinix X2 Slim Intel Core i3 Gen XL23 being IMEI / Serial No.D24) for Rs.25,990/- on 10/06/2023 through online platform of O.P. No.3/Flipkart Co. and got it delivered on 14/06/2023 through O.P. No.2/Seller. But after few days of delivery the Laptop started to give multiple problems like Blue Tooth disconnection (randomly) and Head Phone issues and the Complainant contacted the authorized Service Provider on 12/07/2023 and the concerned technician changed the Mother Board with the assurance that the problem has been fully resolved but the problem still persisted and the Complainant again contacted the authorized Service Provider i.e. MG Service & Solutions on 30/07/2023 but the problem could not be resolved though the replaced Mother Board was installed again. The Laptop was handed over to the Complainant after about five days of such service and the Complainant found the Laptop exhibiting blank screen issues with starting and restarting problem. Having failed to get any relief from the Authority concerned the Complainant has approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……P/2

 Page:2

Out of the three O.P.s only O.P. No.3/Flipkart Co. has contested the case by filing a Written Version and other two O.P.s though were served with Notice did not turn up to contest the case.

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds that the Complainant made series of complaints with the concerned Authority for proper service and maintenance of the defective Laptop in question but the technical defects could not be removed depriving the Complainant of proper use of the product.

Admittedly O.P. No.2 is the Product Seller and O.P. No.1 is the Manufacturer of the Product and O.P. No.3 is the Digital Platform facilitating the transaction between the Buyer and Seller.

O.P. No.3 submitted a lengthy written version where they disown their liability for service and maintenance of the product in question as they are intermediary only. But the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce Rules, 2020) provides otherwise. Section-6(4)(a) of the said Rule reads as follows: -

“ Any Seller offering goods or services through a Marketplace E-Commerce Entity shall have a prior written contract with the respective E-Commerce Entity in order to undertake or solicit such sale or offer.”

According to definition of E-Commerce Entity as provided in Section-3(b) of the said Rule it means any person who owns, parts or manages Digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce but does not include a Seller offering his goods or services for sale on a market place E-Commerce Entity.

It is therefore evident from the above provision of law that the O.P. No.3 be it an intermediary or an Electronic Service Provider has a privity of contract with the seller of the product in order to undertake or solicit the sale or offer. Thus the O.P. No.3 cannot avoid their liability of delivery of any defective product by the seller to the Consumer.

O.P. No.2 being the product seller is on record who is equally liable with O.P. No.3 to compensate the loss and damage sustained by the Complainant for delivery of such defective product.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd…..p/3

Page:3

The Complainant has prayed for refund of price of the Laptop value of Rs.25,990/- with compensation of Rs.20,000/-.The successive complaints regarding the technical defect just after purchase of the  Laptop which could not be removed even on service and repair gives rise to a natural question that the technical defect of the Laptop is to such an extent that it is beyond service and repair. It is better to favour the Complainant with an order of refund of the price of the Laptop than replacement of the same by a new one.

Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.3 and Ex-Parte against O.P. No.1 & 2 all without cost.

O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.25,990/- with Litigation Cost of Rs.2,000/- within a month from this date after taking delivery of the defective Laptop from the Complainant in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

 

     __________________                                   ________________        

 HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                           HON’BLE    MEMBER