Order No. 17 dated 19.06.
The record is put up on prayer of the Complainant along with a petition and xerox copy of the Final Order dated 11.06.19 praying for modification of the Final Order on the ground stated in the petition. Perused the Petition.
On perusal of the written complaint and the cause title of the Final Order, it appears that there is a mistake in respect of sequences of the OP Nos. 2 and 3. In the written complaint, the OP No. 2 is the Manager, Generation Next Technology-STE and the OP No.3 is the Manager, Amazon Corporate Office but it appears from the cause title of the Final Order that the OP No.2 is the Manager, Amazon Corporate Office and the OP No.3 is the Manager, Generation Next Technology-STE. The Final Order was passed on the basis of the cause title of the written complaint.
We are reported that the cause title of the Final order is prepared online causing the unintentional mistake in the Present case due to wrong entry at the time of filing.
Hence, the mistake in the cause title of the Final Order dated 11.06.19 be rectified accordingly.
The OP No.2 be the Manager, Generation Next Technology-STE and the OP No.3 be the Manager, Amazon Corporate Office. The prayer for modification in the body of Final Order cannot be entertained as this Forum has no jurisdiction to review its Final Order. The cause title of the Final Order dated 11.06.19 be modified in respect of OP Nos. 2 and 3 and be uploaded accordingly in terms of this order. The Petition is thus disposed of. The corrected final order be supplied/sent to the parties or their representatives free of cost. The parties are directed to return the copies of judgment already supplied to them.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/56/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.04.18 25.04.18 11.06.19
Complainant: Madan Mohan Mandal
S/O- Late Bhim Chandra Mandal,
NIRUPAMA Abasan, Flat No- E-4,
73, Nirupama Devi Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager, Lenevo(INDIA) Private Ltd
Ferns ICON, Level 2,
Doddenakundi Village,
Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road,
K.R.Puram, Hobli,
Bangalore- 560037
2 The Manager, Generation Next Technology- STE
15/1, Swarnamoyi Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
3. The Manager,
Amazon
Corporate Office
Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor
26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Malleshwarum West, Rajaji Nagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka-560055
4.The Manager, Sairam Marketing
No.- 1/B, Indospace Logistrics Park,
Puduvoyal, Durainallur Village,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvalluvar- 601206,
Tamil Nadu, India
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In person
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 : Sri. Prabir Banerjee.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Madan Mohan Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, Lenovo (India) Private Limited and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant Purchase a Lenovo Z2 Plus Model No. Z2132, Product No. PA5008IN, IMEI No. 862168033691728, Black Colour mobile hand set from Amazon.in on consideration of Rs. 10299/- which was delivered to the Complainant on 28.10.17. Within few weeks of purchased different problems were detected in the said phone such as non-functioning of the touch screen, over heating while the phone was in use, the phone automatically turn switch on and off without pressing the concerned button, etc.
As the phone was within a very initial stage of its purchase and within the warranty period, the Complainant visited to the service center (OP No.-2) of the manufacturer (O.P-1) .On deposit of the said phone, the OP No.2 issued job card and hearing the problem the said O.P opened the hand set in presence of the Complainant . In course of such testing the person opening the phone in the service centre in the presence of the Complainant broke a small part inside the phone. Few days later the said phone was returned to the Complainant after repair and the service center took the service order sheet copy from the Complainant. Thereafter within a few days the similar problems were found while using the said phone and the phone stopped functioning on 23rd January, 2018. Accordingly, again the complainant deposited the hand set to the service centre named above on 24th January, 2018 vide service order sheet No. SOIN07742618101240025. But after 15 days of such deposit while enquiring the service centre verbally express about inherent problems in the phone on its display and motherboard and it was informed that due to non-availability of display in their stock it will take some times to get repaired. After 45 days of the said deposition as the Complainant has not received any response, he intimated the matter through E-mail to the Lenovo Customer Care of the OP No.1 on 6th March’18 and On 7th March’18, the said service center ( OP No.2) called the Complainant and informed that the battery of the phone has been changed as it was defective. But they become unable to show the old battery and its reference No. After a few days the said phone again started not functioning and the Complainant again visited to the service center and it was informed by the OP No.2 that no defects has been found in the phone and it was returned back with the remark the phone is in OK condition but till date the problem has not been solved. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
After service of the notice, OP No.1,2 & 4 did not turn up. OP No.3 filed the written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in any manner against him as the OP No.3 is not involved in the manufacture of the goods and as a facilitator he cannot control in any manner any sell transaction of goods on the website and as such the case is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.3.
Point for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Is the complainant is a consumer?
3. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
On purchase of goods by consideration for his own use the complainant becomes consumer as per section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The main dispute what is to be decided by the Forum is that, whether the Opposite Parties are liable and/or negligence towards the Complainant in rendering service or not.
Undoubtedly the complainant purchased Lenovo Z2 Plus (Model-Z2132, Product No –PA500018IN, IMEI No – 862168033691728, Black Colour) Mobile handset through Amazon.in on paying consideration of Rs.10299/- and the same has been delivered on 28th October,2017 (vide annexure-I). But within 2 months of the purchase the complainant felt problem on non-functioning of the touch screen, over heating while the phone was in use and automatically the hand set becomes on and off without pressing the concerned button etc .For the above reason the complainant visited the service centre at Berhampore (OP No – 2) of the O.P-1 as the phone was within warranty period. The OP No – 2 in order to rectify the defect took the phone from the complainant on issuing job card. After a few days the OP No – 2 returned the said phone after repair. But thereafter within a few days the similar problems arose and the said phone stopped functioning on 23rd January,2018. The complainant again went to the service centre (OP No – 2) on 24th January for removal of the defects (vide annexure 2 & 3). After 15 days of deposit when the complainant enquired about the phone it was informed by the OP No – 2 that it will take time to get repaired but waiting after for a 45 days as the complainant has not received any report from the OP No – 2 intimated the said fact through e-mail to the Lenovo customer care on the 6th March,2018 (vide annuxure – 4) and on the next day the OP No – 2 returned the said handset with an information that the battery of the phone has been changed but did not show the old one and not provided the reference number.But within half an hour after taking the phone from the service centre the problem again arouse and the complainant went back to the said OP No – 2 for repair of the said handset. After two days the OP No – 2 informed the complainant that they had found no problem and the phone is under O.K condition and they returned it to the complainant.
The OP No – 3 namely Amazon in the w/v stated that he is not a necessary nor a proper party in the complaint as he neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The seller themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. Though the website is managed and operated by this OP but the transaction is between the seller and the complainant.
The OP No – 1, 2 & 4 after service of notice did not turn up to controvert the plea of the complainant . So the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by the complainant we are find that the complainant visited the service center of the O.P 1 for many times to get his hand set in a workable condition but the same has not been done by the O.P2. Here lies the deficiency on the part of the O.P 1 &2, as a manufacturer responsibility is on the O.P 1because within a period of two months of purchase the said handset started to create problem and as a service center the O.P 2 failed to resolve the problem in the said hand set. we are of the view that the O.P 3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party as it has nothing to do with the quality of the product, It is only a shopping site and it is the manufacturer who is responsible for the product. It is also not clear before us about the responsibility of O.P4 in the present case and the complainant has claimed no relief against this O.P4
So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party 1&2 are liable to repair the said Mobile Phone in issue in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant without any charges i.e. free of any charges and in case of failure to repair the said Mobile Phone the Opposite Party 1&2 are liable either to replace the said Mobile Phone with a new one of same model with same facilities or to refund the total cost of the said Mobile Phone to the complainant. The complainant should write a letter to the O.P1&2 asking them that how they will collect the said hand set giving seven days’ time on receipt of the said letter by the said O.Ps
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the case be and same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party (1&2) with cost of Rs. 1,000/- only payable to the Complainant jointly and severally and dismissed on contest against O.P3 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against O.P-4 without cost..
The complainant is directed to write a letter to the O.P 1&2 asking them for collection of the handset within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the letter.
That the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2, jointly and severally are directed to repair the said Mobile Phone in dispute in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant without any charges, i.e. free of any charges within one month from the date of the collection of the said hand set, in default, the Opposite Party 1&2 jointly and severally are directed either to replace the said Mobile Phone in question with a new one of same model with same facilities or to refund the price of the hand set to the complainant within 1 month.
That the Opposite Party No. 1 &2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only as compensation for harassment and mental agony & a sum of Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
