Haryana

Karnal

CC/44/2018

Sarwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Surjit Narwal

30 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.  44 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 22.02.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 30.05.2019

 

Sarwan Singh son of Shri Kuldeep resident of village Ganjo Garhi, District Karnal.

                                                                           …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Amazon India (through its authorized Signatory Regd. Office at Brigade Gateway 8^th floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Maleshwaram (W) Bangalore-560055.

2. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd: (through its authorized Signatory) Anjaneya Infrastructure Project no.38 & 39 Soukey Road Kacherakanahalli Hoskote Taluka Bangalore Rural District Bangalore-560067).

3.  Tara Tele & Mobile Service Centre (Through its authorized Signatory) shop no.35 Mela Ram School Market near Sachdev Hospital Karnal                                                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

            

 

 Present:  Shri Surjit Narwal Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Lalit Chopra  Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                   Shri Amit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.3.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Lenovo Vibe SI (White 32 GB) from the OP no.2 through the OP no.1 on its online site Amazon India vide invoice no.KA-BLR6-144105041-12712349 dated 14.05.2017 IMEI no.867267023235010 by paying price of Rs.12,999/- to the OP no.1. The mobile set was having one year warranty. After some days of its purchase, the complainant got shocked to see that said mobile was not working as per specification assured by the OPs. The battery backup was not good but a worst. When the complainant charged its fully battery but it worked only for 2 hours and the mobile got switched off itself. The complainant visited to the OP no.3 i.e. authorized service centre of Lenovo Mobile, there the official keep the mobile and gave it to the complainant after 3/4 days and said that now the problem has been resolved. But the problem was never resolved and the mobile again showed same problem of battery backup as now the battery work only for few minutes. Thereafter, the complainant take it again to the OP no.3 i.e. authorized service centre of Lenovo, the official of the service centre keep the said mobile with them and issued a service order slip, vide customer complaint code C0028, complaint no.SOIN0232861703030003 dated 3.3.2017 in which it is clearly mentioned that the battery backup issue same is again.

2.             Further, the complainant again visited to the OP no.3 for repair of the mobile set. The official of the OP no.3 checked the mobile set and told to complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile and this problem cannot be sort out and also asked the complainant to take his mobile back in same condition but the complainant flatly refused. Since then the mobile set is lying with the OP no.3 till date. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.3 so many times and requested to repair or replace the mobile set but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that OP no.1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. The OP no.1 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does it intervene or influence any customers in any manner. OP no.1 is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. OP no.1 is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 14.11.2018.

5.             OP no.3 in his reply stated that the complainant has wrongly impleaded the OP no.3 as a party to the present complaint. OP no.3 is only a service provider of company i.e. the manufacturer of the alleged mobile and OP no.3 only provides the service under the contract of services on behalf of manufacturer of the alleged mobile. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not furnished any cogent evidence/job sheet to prove any of the allegations regarding the OP no.3. Hence, the complaint of the complainant deserve dismissal qua the OP no.3. It is further stated that OP no.3 is always ready for providing the services on behalf of the manufacturer of the unit as per policy of warranty of company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.

6.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 13.3.2019.

7.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundram Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 9.4.2019.

8.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

9.             The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Lenovo Vibe SI (White 32 GB) from the OP no.2 through the OP no.1 on its online site Amazon by paying price of Rs.12,999/- to the OP no.1. The mobile set was having one year warranty. After some days of its purchase, the complainant got shocked to see that said mobile was not working properly. The battery backup was not good but a worst. When the complainant charged its fully battery but it worked only for 2 hours and the mobile got switched off itself. So, the complainant visited to the OP no.3 i.e. authorized service centre of Lenovo Mobile, there the official keep the mobile and gave it to the complainant after 3/4 days and said that now the problem has been resolved. But the problem was never resolved and the mobile again showed same problem of battery backup as now the battery work only for few minutes. Thereafter, the complainant take it again to the OP no.3 i.e. authorized service centre of Lenovo, the official of the service centre keep the said mobile with them and issued a service order slip, vide customer complaint code C0028, complaint no.SOIN0232861703030003 dated 3.3.2017 in which it is clearly mentioned that the battery backup issue same is again. The complainant again visited to the OP no.3 for repair of the mobile set. The official of the OP no.3 checked the mobile set and told to complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile and this problem cannot be sort out. Since then the mobile set is lying with the OP no.3 till date. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.3 so many times and requested to repair or replace the mobile set but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. Learned counsel of complainant relied upon a authorities of Hon’ble State Commission, Chhattisgarh in 2018 (2) CPJ 198 case titled as Amazon Seller Services Private Limited Versus Lov Kumar Sahoo and Another; 2017(2) CPJ 228 case titled as M/s Xolo Care through its Director/Regional Manager, Head Office Versus Tarun Sharma of Hon’ble Punjab State and 2018(4) CLT 564 case titled as Sri Sushanta Chandra Deb Versus G.R. Service and other of Hon’ble State Commission Tripura.

9.             The case of the OP no.1 is that OP no.1 is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

10.            The case of the OP no.3 is that OP no.3 is only a service provider of company i.e. the manufacturer of the alleged mobile and OP no.3 only provides the service under the contract of services on behalf of manufacturer of the alleged mobile. OP no.3 is always ready for providing the services on behalf of the manufacturer of the unit as per policy of warranty of company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.

11.            Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the mobile set in question from the OP no.2 through OP no.1. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the mobile set in question. After some days of its purchase the mobile set was not working properly, there was a battery problem. So, the complainant deposited the mobile set with the OP no.3 the authorized service centre of the company for repair of the same but OP no.3 neither rectify the defect nor return the mobile set to the complainant. In support of his version complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant OP no.2 (being manufacturer of the mobile set) did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence the evidence produced by the complainant unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, we are of the considered view that act of OP no.2 is amounts to deficiency in service.

 12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.12,999/- i.e. the cost of the mobile set to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:30.05.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                                    (Vineet Kaushik)

                           Member