BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 114 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 16.04.2015.
Date of Order: 10.05.2019.
Ved Parkash Sangwan son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of House No. 2383, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor Ninex City Mart, main Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
2. Golden Mobiles, 9-3-276, Opposite Ganesh Tample Regimental Bazar Railway Station Road, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500003 through its Proprietor.
3. Branch Manager, Idea Cellular Co. Pvt. Ltd., Haluwasia Malla, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.
4. Shop Clues Network Pvt. Ltd., Building No. 112, Opposite HUDA City Center, near Fortis Hospita, Sector-44, Gurgaon Haryana-122001 through its Managing Director.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri S. S. Saini, Advocate for the OP No. 1 and 2.
Shri Avinash Sardana, Advocate for the OP No. 3.
Shri Arun Samota, Advocate for the OP No. 4.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant has booked a mobile LG Google Nexus 5 through internet on Shop Clues.com vide order No.31278745 dated 25.12.2014 by paying Rs.19,849/- as price of the mobile set through net banking. It is alleged that mobile set was delivered through courier on 29.12.2014 on the address of complainant at Bhiwani. It is further alleged that one year guarantee for all type of defects in mobile set was given by OP No. 1. It is further alleged that the mobile set starting giving problem from the 1st day i.e. 3G internet not running, after one month the charger has stopped working. It is further alleged that complainant is using SIM of idea cellular and when mobile had not responded on 3G internet, the complainant got checked the same from OP No. 3, whereby it has been communicated through call that the setting of the SIM for using 3G internet are proper and the 3G internet not working due to some defect in the mobile set. It is further alleged that the complainant had sent email to OP No. 1 and also made telephonic call with the request to replace the mobile set with new one, but they asked to update the software of the mobile set and then the complainant got updated the software for two times, but the mobile set not responded on 3G internet and regularly hanged up. It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the OPs No. 1 and 2 many times to replace the mobile set with new one, but to no effect. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that complainant has not got his mobile set checked from the authorized service centre of the answering OPs. It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has provided the facility of authorized service centre throughout the country. It is further alleged that if the complainant had been facing any problem as alleged in the mobile set, then he should have opted to get his mobile set checked at the service centre and should not have filed the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant had been supplied with a brand new defect free mobile set and it is wrong and hence denied that the same is having any manufacturing defect. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. OP No. 3 on appearance filed contested written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. It is alleged that the answering OP is providing only telephony services and not manufacturer of handset. It is further alleged that complainant was handed over brand new handset in functional condition, which later may have developed technical defects. It is further alleged that once the handset in working state is handed over to purchaser, the liability of manufacturer of handset commences and it’s the manufacturer which is required to provide after sale services and customer is required to approach the authorized service centre of the manufacturer for repair in handset. It is further alleged that the service provider clearly has no role in case defect incurs in handset. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it with special costs.
4. On appearance, the OP No. 4 has filed its separate written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that answering OP is an online marketplace within the meaning of an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act. It is further alleged that the answering OP runs the market place through its website www.shopclues.com and through this website thousands of sellers can display and sell their products and a number of buyers can purchase the said products. It is further alleged that answering OP at no point of time creates, manufactures, owns or provides the goods that are sold on its website. It is further alleged that the answering OP cannot be made liable qua the impugned product since the said product was neither manufactured, made available nor sold by the answering OP, but only displayed on its website that too by the seller. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. The ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record the copy of bill as Annexure C-1 in evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
6. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record Ex. R1, R2, RW3/A, RW4/A and RW4/B and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file carefully.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No. 1 and 2. The only plea taken by the OPs No. 1 & 2 is that the complainant has never approached the authorized service centre for repair of the mobile in question. This plea of the OP No. 1 & 2 is not tenable at all, because they have failed to produce any report of engineer to show that the mobile in question was working properly. On the other hand, the complainant has brought the mobile set for many times on the date of hearing, but the OPs No. 1 & 2 have failed to check the same. The complainant has taken the plea that 3G internet was not running in the mobile and the mobile set use to hang. He further taken the plea that the mobile set has been got checked from OP No. 3, as the SIM in the mobile is of the OP No. 3 i.e. Idea Cellular company. The complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of bill. From bare perusal of the material available on the file, it is clear that there is some defect in the mobile set in question and the OPs have failed in redressing the complaint of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No. 1 & 2. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No. 3 and 4.
8. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against OPs No. 1 & 2 and the OPs No. 1 & 2 are directed: -
i. To pay Rs.19,849/- (Nineteen thousand eight hundred forty nine only) towards cost of mobile set along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
The complainant is directed to hand over the old Mobile set with the OPs No. 1 & 2. The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 10.05.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
