BEFORE   THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  CHARKHI DADRI.

Consumer Complaint No:  56 of 2022. Date of Institution:                            03.03.2022.

Date of Decision:                 12.04.2024

Manoj Kumar aged 52 years son of Sukhpal, resident of village Malkosh, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Limited, L-169,13^th Cross, 5^th Main, Sector-6, HSR Layout, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103 through its M.D./C.E.O.
2. Flipkart India Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bengaluru Karnataka-560034 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                             …...Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:  Hon’ble Shri Manjit Sigh Naryal….. President. Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla......................... Member.

Present :    Shri Shashi Sharma , Advocate for complainant.

Shri Deepanshu Tuteja, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

1.               This present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties u/s 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019  alleging deficiency in services on their part. Brief facts of the case are as             under:-

2. Complainant had  purchased a Mobile phone Motorola one Fusion with serial no.35528114807424 alongwith policy order Id: OD120808161881820000 dated 21.01.2021  for complete mobile protection for one year from OP no.1 through OP no.2 in Rs. 17,499/-. The complainant had given his mobile in exchange bearing IMEI/Serial No. 8642350440492751 and a sum of Rs.8100/- was deducted and the complainant made a payment of Rs. 9399/- to the OP no.1. the complainant paid Rs.599/- to OP no.1 for abovementioned policy  with invoice no. #EAAAB-05837216 through OP no.2. It is alleged that the handset was got damaged on 18.08.2021. The complainant informed to OP no.1 about the matter. On 15.09.2021, an Email was received from the said of OP no.1 to complainant  regarding providing the details of mobile phone damage, pictures of mobile phone alongwith IMEI No. etc. OP no.1 again demanded Rs.1000/- as processing fee to collect mobile phone from complainant and to repair the mobile phone or to return the amount of mobile phone. As per request of OP no.1 complainant paid an amount of Rs.1000/- on dated 16.09.2021. After sending the information as demanded by OP no.1 and paid the processing fee, OPs never revert to the complainant with any Email or other method about the collection of mobile phone from complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 29.10.2021 through his Advocate Jitender Singh but to no avail. Hence this complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.17,499/- alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1000/- as processing fee. That apart, he has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.
3. Opposite party no. 1 in its reply contested the claim of the complainant by stating that  on 03.07.2021, the complainant has raised a request regarding the alleged issue in the product, the answering OP without any delay whatsoever has provided a technician visit. The technician diagnosed the alleged product and found an issue. Hence, the technician took the product for local repair and thereafter it was found that the alleged issue in the product was non repairable as it was manufacturing defect, so the answering OP out of good gesture tried providing a refund  but the complainant denied refund stating that he only wants replacement. Hence, the claim was cancelled and thus  prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
4.  Opposite party no. 2 in its reply contested the claim of the complainant by stating that the said “Flipkart Platform” is an electronics platform. It is only an intermediary to the transaction and thus there is no  privity of contract between the complainant and it. Thus it is not liable in the matter. According to it, the matter is between the buyer and seller and its liability is limited to the extent of giving a digital media platform to be used for the online transactions.

It is submitted that when the OP no.2 checked the previous purchasing history of the user, then it was found that the user had an unusually high number of returns. Hence, the account of the complainant has been blocked under return fraud.

5. The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on 17.11.2023.
6. Counsel for the OPs has closed the evidence  after recorded statement that amended reply be read evidence.
7. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned      hereinafter.
8. It is a well proven fact that the complainant had purchased a Motorola one Fusion + vide  invoice no. FAD58L2100220303 dated 21.01.2021 (Ex. C-1) for Rs.17,499/- and after adjustment of exchange value of OPPO F11 Pro Rs. 8100/- net amount of Rs.9399/- was paid by the complainant. Simultaneously, on the same day, a complete mobile protection for one year was obtained from M/s Jeeves Consumer Services Private Limited (Opposite party no.1) by paying Rs.599/- vide invoice  number EAAAAB-05837216 (Ex.C2). OP no.1 is the  insurer of the handset. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the said handset sold to him was defective right from the date of its purchase, as it did not work properly. Major defect occurred on 18.08.2021 within one year from the purchase which was informed to OP-1. As per amended written statement of OP no.1, the technician of the OP no.1, without any delay whatsoever had provided a technician visit. The technician diagnosed the alleged product and found an issue. Hence, the technician took the product for local repair and thereafter it was found that the alleged defect was non repairable as it was manufacturing defect, so the OP no.1 out of good gesture tried providing a refund  but the complainant denied refund stating that he only wants replacement.
9. OP No.2 (M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.) in its reply to the complaint has submitted that the Flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary  to facilitate sale transactions between independent  third-party sellers  and independent end customers. The function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted. Being intermediary it is not liable for any defect in the product. Hence, OP no.2 submitted that the complaint be dismissed.
10. It shows that the complainant was supplied defective piece of mobile handset and a complete mobile protection for the said mobile hand set was provided by the OP no.1 but after defect no service/replacement of the product was provided, which proves deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. No evidence was led by the opposite party no.1 to disbelieve the version as propounded by complainant in his complaint, which is duly corroborated by his affidavit and the documentary evidence.
11. Hence, as an upshot of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.1, to refund Rs. 17499/- along with interest @ 9 % from the date of filing of this complaint  alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony and  harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the mobile handset for which present complaint has been filed to OP no.1 on receipt of decreed amount in terms of this order. The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP no.1 for the delayed period
12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.