Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/226/2017

Rohit Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/226/2017
Date of Institution	:	14/03/2017
Date of Decision	:	13/02/2018

 

Rohit Garg s/o Brij Bhushan Garg c/o Jagdambay Cement Store, Bye Pass Road, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Microsoft Corporation (India) Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower ‘B’, DLF Building No.5, Epitome, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon 122002 through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2.     Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit,No.6/B, 7^th Main, 80 feet road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034 through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

3.     Mobile Connect, SCO No.2473-74, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

4.     WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, ‘B’ Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI RAVINDER SINGH	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Ashok Kumar, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Gautam Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3
	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for OP-2, proxy counsel for Sh. Vikram Vir Sharda, Counsel for OP-4.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 27.5.2016, the complainant purchased a Mobile phone (Lumia 950 XL) through the website of OP-2 for Rs.34,998/-. In the month of September, 2016, the complainant started facing problem of display going blank in the same. On the directions of customer care, the complainant deposited the mobile set with OP-3 through his cousin brother on 29.9.2016, 9.12.2016 and 27.12.2016, but, the problem could not be solved.  As per the complainant, the mobile handset is lying with OP-3 since 27.12.2016, but, the OPs have failed to either replace the same or refund its value. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-2 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that OP-2 does not sell any products to end consumers and it is a wholesaler and is involved in B2B sales. It has been stated that OP-2 is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the mobile phone, as such, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and it. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-3 in its separate written reply has also not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that the mobile set was thoroughly checked. It was found on every occasion that the software of the set was infected with virus due to heavy downloading and the same was removed by updating the software and the set was returned to the complainant.  It has been contended that the mobile was again deposited with the problem of blank display on 27.12.2016 and the same was kept for repairs and after repairs the complainant was asked to collect the same, but, he never came forward. 
4.         OP-4 in its separate written reply has also not disputed the factual matrix.  However, it has been averred that the role of OP-3 is only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturers. Its role comes to an end as soon as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer.  It has been contended that the liability for defects in the product or after sales service issues rests with manufacturer or its authorised service centre i.e. OPs 1 & 3. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-4 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         As per order dated 26.10.2017, OP-1 adopted the reply filed by OP-3.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
8.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one Microsoft Lumia handset after paying consideration of Rs.34,990/- on 27.5.2016.  Annexure C-2, C-3 and C-4 are copies of three job sheets dated 29.9.2016, 9.12.2016 and 27.12.2016 respectively with the same kind of problem that the ‘display gets blank’ while making call. The sole grouse of the complainant is that the handset is still in possession of OP-3 since 27.12.2016 and the same has neither been repaired nor returned after necessary repairs.
9.         The stand taken by OP-2 (Flipkart), the online portal is that neither it sells nor manufactures the goods and is involved in B to B sale only.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
10.         On the other hand, OP-3/service centre has taken the stand that the software of the handset was infected with virus due to heavy downloading and the same was removed by updating the software.  The complainant was informed when the same was submitted to it on 27.12.2016 that the repairs have been done and he can collect the same, but, it was the complainant who chose not to come forward to collect the repaired handset.
11.         OP-4 the seller has taken the stand that it resells the products of various manufacturers and it has nothing to do with the manufacturing defect or any service issue.  Hence, it is nowhere deficient in providing services to the complainant.
12.         Perusal of the bill Annexure C-1 reveals that the complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.34,998/- to purchase the branded handset, but, Annexure C-2 to C-4 makes it clear that the handset could not work even for four months. It is crystal clear from all the job sheets annexed that same kind of issue was reported time and again by the complainant.  It was for the service centre i.e. OP-3 and the manufacturer OP-1 to provide proper services to redress the grievance of the complainant, but, the recurrence of the same kind of faults time and again makes it clear that the faults reported could not be rectified properly despite a number of services, that too within the warranty period.  Hence, the act of OPs 1 & 3 for selling a substandard product to the complainant and later on non providing proper services to him, within the warranty period, and keeping the handset in their possession, till date, proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs 1 & 3. OPs 1 & 3 are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.34,998/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

14.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 3 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.         So far as deficiency in service on the part of OPs 2 & 4 is concerned, we are of the opinion that they, being online portal and seller, have nothing to do in providing after sale services.  Hence, the consumer complaint qua them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.   
16.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	SD/-	SD/-
13/02/2018	[Ravinder Singh]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member