Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/9

Sh. Shreepat Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Me Manager Consumer Flipcart - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 9/16

Shreepat  Rao Kamde   R/O  B-132,   Mansarover Garden, New Delhi-110015                                                          ….. Complainants

VERSUS

1. The  Manager ,   Consumer Care,  Flipkart  India Ltd.  Vaishnavi Sumit No. 6/B 7^th Main 80 Feet Road 3^rd  Block,      Koramangla Banglore-560034.    

 

2. WS Retail  Service Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No. 27/25    Oppo. Sai Baba Mandir    Rohtak Road Tikkri Kalan  Delhi-110004                                                    .…..Opposite  Parties

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  had purchased  DIGIFLIP PRO XI 811 Tablet vide  invoice dated 10.09.2015  from Flipkart through internet and paid cash amount  or Rs. 5499/- . It was written on Web page and Quick Start  Guide that tablet  purchased by complainant was having  one year  manufacturing warranty and six months warranty for other  inbox accessories with three transit insurance. It is also mentioned that  there are about 120 service centers in more than 100 cities. In fact service center was shown on paper to gain confidence  of customer which  amounted to unfair trade practice .  The case of the complainant is that the tablet suddenly stopped working since 05.12.2015  and it did not start on pressing on/off button.  As a result the  complainant was unable to use it.  Accordingly the complainant informed OP on 06.12.2015  about defective tablet and asked OP for service center to get  the same  repaired ,  however, no details of service center were given to the complainant.  On the advice of OP -1 the complainant  visited Digiflip Service Center M/s Best Service shop no. g1 and g2 express arcade plot no. H-10 Subash  place Pitampura New Delhi-110049 on 11.12.2015 . Service Center told the complainant that service contract of tablet  has expired  in April 2015 and could  be repaired against  payment charges.  The complainant thereafter sent notice dated 19.12.2015 and requested repair/replacement and complainant received reply of the notice in which  OP-1  mentioned company on line plateform merely  intermediary and not  manufacturer.  The complainant  made several attempts to get the tablet repair but in vain hence he filed  the present complaint  with refund  of cost of tablet  with compensation of Rs.8,000/- for physical strain and  mental agony and  Rs. 2,000/- for cost of petition.

3.  OP-1  filed written statement stating that the complainant is mis-joinder of  parties  because  OP-1  is neither  manufacturer of mobile phone nor is the re-seller hence the defect of manufacturing  of tablet cannot be associated with OP-1.  Also there was  no privity of  contract  between  complainant  and OP1.  The complainant  has purchased  the  product on-line and the contract of sale is only between seller and complainant.  OP-2  filed reply stated that Stated that OP-2  is not engaged  in selling of  any  goods  manufactured of its own rather OP-2  is engaged of selling goods manufactured and produced by the manufacturer .  The product in question was sold by OP-2 carrying manufactured warranty as provided  by  manufacturer  and thus present complaint  should have been filed against the manufacturer or its service center. 

3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint.  On the other hand Sh. Amit Pratap Singh s/o  Sh. S.P.Singh  authorized signatory filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P -1 and Ms Swati  Singh W/o Ashutosh Singh  authorized signatory filed his affidavit on behalf of  OP-2.   Written submissions have also been filed by the parties.
4.      We have heard  Counsel for parties  and perused the record.
5.       During the course  of final argument on 07.09.2018 complainant appeared  in present  and in all fairness  submitted at bar that he has received Rs. 5499/- being the price of  product involved in the  complaint one month after filing of the present complaint.  Complainant further submitted that he is now agitating  his right to be compensated towards inconvenience  harassment  and litigation expenses.  Since the price of the product has been refunded , therefore, the relief of replacement of product or refund thereof  stand satisfied.  Since the complainant had to approach this  forum for redressal of his grievance on account of defective product by the OPs and that OP returned the sale price of the product one month after filing the complaint in the circumstances, so the complainant needs to be fairly compensated for the inconvenience suffered by him.     
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance stated above we award a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to complainant toward harassment, inconvenience and  litigation expenses. 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

   File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this___ 28 ___ day of   September _______ 2018.

 

                                                                                                                       ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                     PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER