Delhi

East Delhi

CC/210/2017

VIVEK TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

LE ECO - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.           210/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                   07/07/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                  04/10/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                           09/10/2019  In matter of

Mr. Vivek Tyagi  s/o Yogesh Tyagi     

R/o   17A, Jhilmil eKart Office  

Shahdara Delhi 110093

 

Through SPA –

 

Mr Sanjeev s/o Raj Kumar

R/o- 588 Mandaula,

Ghaziabad, UP 201102…………………………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s  LeEco  

Unit 201- 2014, 2^nd Floor, Tower 4B

DLF Corporate Park,

Gurgaon Haryana 122002 

 

2- M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd.   

42/1-43, Kacherakanhahalli Village 

Jadigenahalli Hubli Hoskote Taluka

Bangaluru-560067

 

3-M/s Service City  

201 2^nd Floor sagar Plaza B/h PSK

Nr Nirman Vihar Metro Station,

Vikas MArg Delhi 110092 ………………………..…..……….Opponents

 

 

Complainant Advocate-                    Ms Renu Tyagi

Opponent’s 1-                                     Ex Parte

Opponent 2 Advocate                       Mr Sachin Sharma & Asso.

Opponent 3                                         Ex Parte     

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                               

Complainant purchased mobile from OP2/Flipkart, an online Portal vide model no. VS 24817 Letv IMEI/MAC no. 869087025531705 vide invoice no PL F 13872804 on dated 03/07/2016 for a sum of Rs 9899/- having one year standard warranty (Ex CW1/1), but the cost was paid by the Special Power of Attorney Mr Sanjeev (Ex CW1/2&2A) through credit card.

It was stated that within one month of its use, handset started charging problem due to some manufacturing defect so was taken to service centre/ M/s Service City as OP3 by Special Power of Attorney on 04/08/2016 and again on 19/08/2016 (Ex CW1/3 &3A), but OP3 denied to hand over the said mobile as per service agreement contract with customer and manufacturer still SPA was visiting to get the mobile from OP3. Later SPA requested to replace the handset or refund the cost of mobile as cost was paid by SPA. It was stated by the SPA that the said mobile was used for business purpose in collecting samples for Dr Lal Path Lab and suffered huge financial loss to one lac due to the deficiency in service of OP3. So SPA sent legal notice to all OPs on 13/10/2016 for refund of the cost of handset or return handset within seven days. When no reply was received filed this complaint and claimed cost of said mobile Rs 9899/-with compensation of Rs one lac for mental and financial harassment as hand set had manufacturing defect.  

OP1/ manufacturer appeared and filed vakalatnama through their advocate, but did not file written statement nor evidences, so preceded Ex parte. OP3 / service centre was also preceded Ex Parte as none appeared despite of serving notices or filed written statement. OP 2/ Flipkart an online portal, filed written statement and denied all the allegations of complainant and admitted that the said mobile was sold by the complainant/ Mr Vivek Tyagi and not by the SPA holder Mr Sanjeev. It was admitted that OP3/ service centre rightly refused to hand over the said hand set to the SPA. Instead of purchaser/ complainant to collect the handset, but did not turn up. It was stated that OP2 being an intermediary to facilitators sale transaction between independent third party sellers and end customers u/s 2(1)(w) of the IT Act,2000.

It was submitted the details about OP2/Flipkart could be seen on its official website www.flipkart.com where OP2 never deals directly with consumers, but products were sold by the authorised sellers to buyers All warranty was to be given by the seller only on behalf of manufacturer. So customer/ complainant had contract between OP1 and OP3. Hence OP2 had no liability against complainant.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder where he denied replies submitted by OP2 as being the sole seller of the said handset and had all terms and conditions under warranty tenure. All his facts and evidences were true and correct. He also submitted evidences through his own affidavit where he reaffirmed on oath that he rely on all evidences as true and correct (Ex CW1/1,2,2A and 3) and prayed for allowing his complaint.      

OP2 in their evidences on affidavit through Mr Satyajeet Bhattacharya Authorised Signatory and affirmed on their written statement and evidences on record. It was stated that under standard warranty, the said mobile developed charging problem for which OP3/ service centre rectified, but did not hand over to SPA as he was not a complainant. The actual consumer was complainant in whom the invoice was issued. It was stated that hand set could be submitted by anyone, but rightful owner could collect the set which was not done so. It was also admitted that the mobile was with OP3/service centre. It was also stated that OP1/seller and OP3 had no deficiency in their product or in service. As OP2 being an online portal had no deficiency in service in taking order and sending to seller/OP1, so there was no deficiency in services by OP1, 2 and 3. 

Arguments were heard from Ld counsels of OP2 and complainant. After perusal of the material and evidences on record, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It has been observed that complainant has purchased the said mobile, but SPA was attending proceeding, but not a rightful consumer. Also complainant could not prove any manufacturing defects in his mobile nor went to OP3 to collect his mobile.

That being so, we come to the conclusion that said mobile was submitted with OP2 and had warranty also so, we direct complainant to collect his mobile from OP3 within 30 days in good working condition. There shall be no order to cost. We also exonerate OP1, OP2 and OP3 for any liability.  

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR) in 15 days from the date of order and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20 (1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member

 

                                                                 Sukhdev Singh President