DATE OF FILING : 13.7.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th  day of  July,  2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

          SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.197/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Homsa P.K.,

Pathariyil House,

Vannappuram P.O.,

Idukki – 685 607.

 

And

Opposite Party                                          :    Manu Agarwal,

CEO, Naaptol,

No.11, Conopus,

Kabra Galaxy Star I CHS,

Brahmand, Tane West – 400 607. 

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

        Complainant purchased a phone through online marketing company Naaptol, branded ICEX, by paying an amount of Rs.2999/- as value of the phone and Rs.399/- as shipment charges, on 14.6.2016.  From the date of receipt of the mobile phone itself, it showed malfunctioning and the complainant intimated the matter to the online marketing company and send complaints through e-mail.  Even though the complainant sent so many mails and phone calls, the opposite party company never turned up to cure the defects of the phone or repay the amount.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the opposite party and prayed for getting back the amount that he spent and other consequential reliefs.

        On notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version denying the averments in the complaint.  In their version, opposite 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

party contended that, they provides platform to various sellers and brands for advertising different goods to the customers spread all over India at most reasonable prices and works as service provider between the customers and sellers.  Opposite party further contended that, the complainant has purchased “ICEX water mobile” through their company and from the vendor named Drive India, worth Rs.3398/- paid to the concerned vendor by way of cash on delivery (COD).  On  each and every advertisement, it is clearly mentioned as “products and warranty by 3rd party-vendor”, to make aware to every buyer that the opposite party is working only as a marketing channel.  When the purchase order was placed by the complainant with the opposite party, the same was intimated to the concerned vendor, who then dispatch and delivered a standard quality product to the complainant.

        Opposite party further contended that, the e-mail of the complainant was received on 18th June 2014 in which it was mentioned that “water mobile has not worked properly.  Not getting on or not charging”.  To this, the opposite party replied on 20th June 2016, that the customer relationship management (CRM) team replied that, the complaint has been transferred to technical department.  Normally, any complaint of any product of any company requires 24-48 houses to resolve.  The complainant has to maintain patience and be calm in this situation.  No one does this purposely and no one is likes to harass anyone because the opposite party values and respects each and every buyer who purchased through opposite party including the complainant.  Under this circumstance, there is no default or mistake from the side of the opposite party and is not liable for any compensation or damages.  

Complainant examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11 marked.  Copy of receipt is marked as Ext.P1 and print out of e-mail messages are marked as and Exts.P2 to P10.   Warranty card is marked as Ext.P11. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by  the opposite  party.

Heard both sides. (cont....3)

-  3  -

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

The POINT :-  We have perused the records as well as considered the point of argument put forward by the learned counsels for both the parties.  The online purchase of the water mobile and its defects are not challenged by the opposite party, at the same time, opposite party specifically contended that they work as marketing platform and service provider or link between the buyer and the seller.  The learned  counsel for the opposite party pointed out that they provides marketing platform of products of various sellers and brands by offering product information and best deals, offers, schemes to the buyers through company’s official website and each and every advertisement it is clearly mentioned as “products and warranty by third party-vendor”.  Counsel further pointed out that the warranty or after sale service was conducted by the concerned manufacturer and as a seller, opposite party is not liable for that.  

        By perusing the documents, the Forum is of a considered view that, in this matter, the complainant forced to purchase such a thing only enticed with the advertisement and offers published by the opposite party company through various media.  Hence he is having direct link only with the opposite party company and he remitted the amount to the opposite party company as they demanded.  The complainant is totally unaware of the manufacturer.  Moreover opposite party has not raised any question of non-joinder of necessary party.  Hence it is the bounden duty of the opposite party company to resolve this problem, since they dispatched the electronic item to the company and received the payment.

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that selling of defective goods and denial of its service is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the opposite party alone is liable. (cont....4)

                      -  4  -

Hence the Forum directs the opposite party to cure the defects of the water mobile discussed above to the satisfaction of the complainant or else repay an amount of Rs.3394/- to the complainant  and also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/-, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.3394/- shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till the realization.

       Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2017 

 

   Sd/-

      SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

  Sd/-

          SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Hamsa P.K.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1                  -  Copy of receipt. are marked as and 

Exts.P2 to P10 -  print out of e-mail messages. 

Ext.P11            -  Warranty card.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

      Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT