BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.63 of 2016
Date of Institution : 25.02.2016
Date of Decision : 14.12.2016.
Ritesh Singla, r/o Jain Market, Arora Sunaron Wali Gali, Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. K. Raheja Manager Motorolla India Private Ltd., I T Park, H-Tech, City Madhapur, Hydrabad.
2. Flip Kart On-line Shopping Company, having their office at Ware House 42/1, and 43, Kacherakhanwali, village Jadigenahalli Hobli, Haskote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 5600067.
3. Motortolla India Pvt Ltd., having its head office (Name and address to be supplied by ops No.1 & 2).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 & 3 already exparte.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant placed an online order to the opposite party no.2 for purchase of mobile manufactured by op no.3 and accordingly, the mobile set Model No. Moto-G bearing EMEI No.353326064479571 was supplied by ops being inter-connected with them. The said mobile was supplied to the complainant for an amount of Rs.12,999/- vide retail invoice dated 27.2.2015 with warranty of one year. The complainant was shocked to detect that mobile set is not working properly as its display was not working properly and in a smooth way and besides this there was hanging problem upon which complainant approached ops. The ops did some repair work on the mobile and returned the same to him saying that mobile is ok. However, the complainant raised the demand of replacement of said mobile set as problem in the mobile set occurred due to manufacturing problem and also within the guarantee/warranty period, upon which they replied that as they have made the mobile ok, the same need no replacement and also assured him that in case there is any problem in future, then they would definitely replace the mobile of their own or would refund the price. Thereafter, the complainant again faced problem of auto off and display and made complaint to ops time and again through e-mail messages. In the month of December, 2015, he lodged complaint at toll free number of op no.3 and they provided complaint Sr. No.15121208999 and stated that his grievance would be redressed within 48 hours, but when nobody bothered about his complaint, he again made complaint on toll free number on which they demanded snapshot of IMEI Number which was duly sent and thereafter several complaints/ requests of complainant have gone in vain. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops but ops refused to do anything stating that there is major manufacturing defect in the mobile which cannot be removed. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.2 replied that role of op no.2 is that of intermediary only i.e. to provide an online platform and facilitate the entire transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its website and is not engaged in selling of any goods on its own, so complaint against op no.2 is not maintainable. Ops no.1 & 3 were duly proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, order detail Ex.C2, retail invoice Ex.C3, e-mails Ex.C4 to Ex.C7, legal notice Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant had purchased mobile in question for a sum of Rs.12,999/- through on line on 27.2.2015 through opposite party no.2 and the said mobile is manufactured by opposite party no.3. In this regard, complainant has placed on file retail invoice/ bill dated 27.2.2015 Ex.C3. The complainant is alleging defects in the mobile in question in the warranty period and has placed on file various e-mails sent to the opposite parties No.1 & 3. The ops No.1 & 3 have not bothered to appear before this Forum and have opted to be proceeded against exparte. Op no.2 through whom the mobile in question has been purchased by complainant has appeared and has explained that the role of op no.2 is only of an intermediary which is justified. The ops No.1 & 3 are liable for the defects in the mobile in question during warranty period.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 & 3 to repair the mobile in question and make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs. In case the mobile in question is not repairable, then they will replace the mobile in question with a new one of same description or will refund an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant against the price of the mobile in question of Rs.12,999/- i.e. after deduction of Rs.4999/- for using the mobile by complainant. This order should be complied by the opposite parties No.1 & 3 jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 14.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
