BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 640 of 2017
Date of Institution: 13.09.2017
Date of Decision: 02.02.2018
Jatainder Sigh son of Parduman Singh, resident of 1323, 4-A, Guru Nanak Nagar, Near Gurdwara Nanaksar, Verka, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Lenovo India Private Limited, Vatlka Business Park, First Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer.
- A.A.Electronics, Near Prem Rai Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar through is Prop/ Parnter Vikas Kumar.
- Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone, Manay Techpark, 56/18, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalaya, Hosur Road, Banglore-560068 through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Arora, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Exparte.
For Opposite Party No.3 : Sh.Saurabh Sharmaa, Advocate.
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one Mobile Set through online order Model Lenovo vide K5 bearing EMEI No.869090023631154, 869090023631162 of Rs.13,299/- on 15.9.2016 through Opposite Party No.3 having one year warranty and Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1. Said Mobile Set was given touch problem in the month of July, 2017 and in this regard, the son of the complainant sent e-mails to officials of Opposite Party No.1 that the touch of the Mobile Set in question is not working properly. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No. 2 on 16.8.2017 and requested them to rectify the problem in the Mobile Set in question, but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties several time and requested to rectify the Mobile Set in question, but the Opposite Parties are not setting right the Mobile Set in question. The above said act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service, Unfair Trade Practice towards the complainant so which the complainant has to suffer a lot of inconvenience, mental pain and harassment at the hands of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Necessary directions may kindly be given to the Opposite Parties either to repair the Mobile Set in question of the complainant or to replace it with the new one.
b) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant for the harassment, inconvenience, mental pain and agony suffered to him.
c) The cost of the litigation of Rs.11,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitle under the law may also be awarded to him in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, hence Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.
3. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum and cooked all crooked stories of sufferings, hence the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. The company is engaged, among others, in providing trading/ selling facility over the internet through is website. The answering Opposite Party provides online marketplace platform/ technology and / or other mechanism/ services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, buy and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including, but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes etc. Said Flipkart Platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent and customers. It is further submitted that no dispute, as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, is caused to have arisen between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.3 and thus, the relief prayed for, is ought to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. On merits, the Opposite Party No.3 took almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Satyajeet Bhattacharya Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased one Mobile Set through online order Model Lenovo vide K5 bearing EMEI No.869090023631154, 869090023631162 of Rs.13,299/- on 15.9.2016 through Opposite Party No.3 having one year warranty and Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1. Said Mobile Set was given touch problem in the month of July, 2017 and in this regard, the son of the complainant sent e-mails to officials of Opposite Party No.1 that the touch of the Mobile Set in question is not working properly. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No. 2 on 16.8.2017 and requested them to rectify the problem in the Mobile Set in question, but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties several time and requested to rectify the Mobile Set in question, but the Opposite Parties are not setting right the Mobile Set in question. The above said act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service, Unfair Trade Practice towards the complainant so which the complainant has to suffer a lot of inconvenience, mental pain and harassment at the hands of the Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum and cooked all crooked stories of sufferings, hence the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. The company is engaged, among others, in providing trading/ selling facility over the internet through is website. The answering Opposite Party provides online marketplace platform/ technology and / or other mechanism/ services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, buy and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including, but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes etc. Said Flipkart Platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent and customers. It is further submitted that no dispute, as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, is caused to have arisen between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.3 and thus, the relief prayed for, is ought to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3.
9. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased mobile set in question from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 through Opposite Party No.3 and said mobile set became defective and there was the problem/ defect of its touch screen and it was not properly functioning. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e authorized service centre, but the said problem still exists and Opposite Party No. 2 could not repair the Mobile Set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant proved all these averments through his affidavit Ex.C1 and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 despite service to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant.
10. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant was suffering from inherent defects, which did not admit repair/ rectification. As such, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant or to refund the amount of the mobile set in question to the complainant alongwith interest.
11. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant with costs and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 13,299/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. But however, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 02.02.2018. (Rachna Arora) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Presiding Member
