DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Tuesday the 30th day of August 2022
C.C. 423/2016
Complainant
Dr. Bijay Raj. R,
Administrative Section,
Department of Family Medicine,
MIMS Hospital, Mini Bypass,
Kozhikode.
(By Adv. Sri. Anil Viswanath)
Opposite Parties
- Micromax, Micromax House,
90B, Sector – 18,
Gurgaon – 122015.
- Amazone Online Shopping,
Brigade Gateway,
Malleswaram West, Bangaluru,
Karnataka – 560055.
(By Adv. Sri. Razal Rahiman)
- M/s Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.,
Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 & 39,
Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli, Hoskote taluka,
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore – 560067.
- M/s Ridham Mobiles,
Darussalam Complex,
Authorized Service Centre,
Mavoor Road, Kozhikode.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The first opposite party is the manufacturer, the second opposite party is the online seller, the third opposite party is the agent who sells the product on behalf of the first opposite party and the fourth opposite party is the authorized service centre of the first opposite party. On 12/01/2016 the complainant purchased Micromax ‘Yu Yutopia’ model mobile phone from the first opposite party. The said model was marketed and sold through the second opposite party. The complainant made online payment of Rs-25,000/- to the second opposite party and the mobile phone was delivered to him within a couple of days. In fact, the sale was by the third opposite party. One of the main features of the handset was reverse side camera. The camera lens cover which was fixed on the outside of the reverse side of the camera started coming out loose rendering the device very difficult to use. In the first week of April 2016, he approached the fourth opposite party to rectify the defect, who promised to do so within 25 days. But it took 45 days to deliver the handset after several reminders. On getting the delivery, the complainant realised that the mobile handset has been replaced with a new one of the same model. But after use of the same for few days, the same complaint started. It was understood that most of the customers are having the same complaint and it is design fault which amounts to manufacturing defect.
3. On 03/01/2016 the complainant approached the service centre where they offered to stick the camera lens cover with adhesive/gum which the complainant refused as it would have awkward look. As suggested by the fourth opposite party, he directly interacted with the first opposite party, but in vain. The irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties have caused the complainant tremendous account of inconvenience and financial hardship. Being a doctor by profession, the mobile phone is an integral gadget to contact his hospital staff and patients. The phone which was an expensive one was purchased to facilitate the work of a busy doctor, but it turned out to be a headache and he was cheated. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs. 25,000/- collected towards the price of the mobile phone, Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, Rs-10,000 as cost of the proceedings and Rs-5,000/- towards expenses.
4. The opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 were set ex-parte. The second opposite party filed written version.
5. According to the second opposite party, they are not an online seller of the first opposite party. They operate and runs an e-commerce website. They merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale to end customers. The complainant herein purchased a mobile phone which has been sold by third opposite party. The complainant placed an online order on 12/01/2016 and purchased the handset which was delivered to him at Kozhikode. They are not responsible for the defects in the product and the liability, if any, remains with the seller and the manufacturer. They are only a facilitator between the customers and sellers and are not liable for the defects in the product. None of their acts or omissions has caused any inconvenience or hardship to the complainant. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part. There is no cause of action against the second opposite party. With the above contentions, the second opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
7. The complainant has filed affidavit and Ext A1 and A2 were marked. At the time of evidence, the second opposite party remained absent.
8. Heard.
9. Point No.1 : the first opposite party is the manufacturer of YU Yutopia YU5050 model mobile phones. The complainant purchased the mobile phone through the second opposite party paying Rs. 24,999/- and the payment was made online. The third opposite party was the seller. One of the main features of the mobile phone was reverse side camera. But the camera lens cover started coming out loose rendering the devise unusable. In the first week of April, the complainant approached the fourth opposite party, who was the authorized service centre, for rectifying the defect. After 45 days, he was supplied with a new handset in place of the old one. But the same complaint persisted for the new handset also. Even after interacting with the first opposite party, no positive action was taken to redress his grievance. Hence he has approached this Commission seeking refund of the price of the handset and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with cost of the proceedings and other expenses.
10. The complainant filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the bill dated 12/01/2016 and Ext A2 is the copy of the e-mail correspondence. The complainant has asserted in the proof affidavit that the handset is having design fault which amounts to manufacturing defect and that he was cheated. The complainant was not cross examined and his evidence stands unchallenged. The first third and fourth opposite parties have not turned up to file version. Even though the second opposite party has filed written version, they have also chosen to remain absent at the time of evidence. No contra-evidence is there. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked by the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through affidavit and Exts A1 and A2.
11. The act and irresponsible conduct of the first opposite party in selling a defective product and not attending the grievance of the complainant constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price from the first opposite party. Besides he was put to mental agony and hardship, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as cost of proceedings.
12. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC-423/2016 is allowed in part.
b) The first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 24,999/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand and nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant, being the price of the mobile phone.
c) The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered.
d) The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e) The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 24,999/- shall carry an interest of 6% P.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.
f) The opposite parties 2 to 4 are exonerated.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of August, 2022.
Date of Filing: 26/09/2016.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of bill dated – 12/01/2016.
Ext. A2 - Copy of e-mail correspondence.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
Nil.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nill.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By Order
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
