IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/159/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.10.18 30.10.18 04.09.19
Complainant: Bikash Mondal
S/o Bhadra Mondal
Vill-Bagdohor
PO- Ajimganj
PS-Jiaganj
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742123
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Manager
Flipkart
Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd.
House No. 37/3, Old Rajender Nagar
Near Water Tank
Central Delhi
New Delhi
Pin-110060
2. The Manager
National Service Center
Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited
formerly known as Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India Limited
1st Floor Nilkanth-2 near CU Shah College
Ashram Road
Ahmedabad
Pin380014
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Subhanjan Sengupta.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1&2 : Sri. Prabir Kr. Banerjee.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
One Bikash Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, Flipkart 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 purchased one Air condition machine Model No. RAC312EWEAS made of Hitachi through online purchase scheme from the OP No. 1(Flipkart) on consideration Rs. 33,176/- on 08.10.2017.
But within few days of installation of the said Air condition machine it started to creat problem & on getting information the OP No. 2 has changed the PCB main programme Board but after few days again the said machine stopped working and the OP No. 2 again repeated the same procedure and the same things happened for four times. Considering the problem the complainant approached the OPs to change the said Air condition machine but the OPs denied the same. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case for appropriate relief.
The OP No. 1 after service of notice appeared before this Forum by filing written version contending inter aila that this OP is carrying business of sale of goods manufacture or produces by other company and it carries manufacturer’s warranty against manufacturing defect subject of the terms and conditions determined by that company only and this OP delivered the product in a sealed box and the complainant received the sealed product. As a good will gesture the OP No. 1 provides 10 days return / replacement policy to its customer but this complainant has not done any thing regarding replacement of the product to the OP No. 1 within the stipulated time. So, there no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 1 and the case is liable to be dismissed against this OP and the OP No. 2 is only liable for its manufacturer warranty.
The OP No. 2 after service of the notice has not turned up to controvert the plea of the complainant for the reason best known to them. So the case proceeds ex-parte against the op 2.
Now the question arises –
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to get relief as prayed for?
Decision of the reason:
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the Sake of convenience and brevity.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
The main disputes what is to be decided by this Forum is that, weather the OPs are liable and / or negligent towards the complainant in rendering service or not.
Admittedly the complainant purchased one Air conditioner machine model No. RAC312EWEAS of Hitachi made through online purchase scheme of the OP No. 1 i.e. Flipkart on consideration of Rs. 33,176/- on 08.10.2017. But after few days of installation of the said machine it started to creat problem repeatedly and the OP No. 2 changed the PCB main programme board for four times. For such continuous problem the complainant requested the OPs to changed this machine but the complainant got no positive response from them.
The OP No. 1 in the written version stated that he is not the manufacturer of the product but he only carries the product and delivered the same to the addressee and it also carries the manufacturer warranty.
Ld. Adv. On behalf of the OP No. 1 relied upon the citation “Hindustan Motors Ltd., and another Vs. N. Sivakumar (2000) 10 SCC 654” and “Abhinandan Vs. Ajit Kumar Verma and Ors. (2008) CPJ336 (NC)”.
In view of the ruling reported in Hindustan Motors Ltd., and another Vs. N. Sivakumar (2000) 10 SCC 654, it is found that OP No. 1 is not responsible for the defects of the goods if any and it is also reported in the ruling Abhinandan Vs. Ajit Kumar Verma and Ors. (2008) CPJ336 (NC), Where in the Hon’ble National Commission has made observation as under – “……………………………for manufacturing defects it is only the manufacturer who is liable to refund the cost of VCP”. So in this case the complainant has failed to established the allegation made against the OP No. 1 under the Consumer protection Act.
OP No. 2 did not turned up to controvert the plea of the complainant for the reason best known to them. So the case proceed ex-parte against the OP No. 2.
It is the case of the Complainant that A.C. Machine has become out of order 4 times and he informed the service centre 4 times and they have come and repaired the same without cost as the A.C. Machine is under warranty period. But it is not the case of the Complainant that A.C. Machine has become out of order thereafter and it is not functioning at present.
This OP No.2 being the service center of the product is duty bound to attend the user call in case of any problem of the products of the manufacturer. The record reveals that the complainant alleged that the AC machine is found defective after some days from the date of a its installation and it is within the warranty period and op no 2 had repaired said machine of the Four times. It is the manufacturer who is responsible for the product not the service centre. But the complainant has not made the manufacturer a party and the OP No.2 as a service center has done his duty in repairing the said AC Machine within warranty period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both parties, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P No1 as an online shopping site and the O.P no 2 always attended the complainant to address the problem of the complainant and solved the problem. So there is also no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 2.
Therefore in the light of the above discussion it is finally decided by this Forum that the complainant has filed to prove the case and is not entitle get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in negative.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 04.1018 and admitted on 30.10.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
Fees paid are correct. In the result,the complainant case is failed.
Hence, it is
ordered
that the case no: CC/159/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No.1without cost and dismissed ex-party against the op no 2 without cost.
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.
