Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/222/2019

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/222/2019
Date of Institution	:	04/04/2019
Date of Decision	:	10/12/2019

 

Ravinder Kumar S/o Shri Tirlok Chand, R/o House No.2005/26, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560034 (India), through its Managing Director.

 

[2]     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Block Delta, B Block, Embassy Tech Square, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanhalli Vathur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103, through its Managing Director.

 

[3]     M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, Xiomi Service Centre, SCO No.12, 1^st Floor, above YES Bank, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THKAUR	PRESIDENT
	DR. S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte).
		Sh. Atul Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
		Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

                       

PER DR.S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Redmi Note-5 Pro mobile for Rs.11,267/-, carrying a warranty of one year, from Opposite Party No.1 on 15.10.2018 vide bill Annexure C-1. During Mar. 2019, the Complainant noticed that due to heating related problem, the handset slightly got bent. The matter was reported to the Opposite Party No.3, who initially assured to replace the handset after discussing with Opposite Party No.2 (Manufacturer), but subsequently offered to repair the handset on payment basis and demanded Rs.4500/- as repair charges. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
4.         However, subsequently, on 02.09.2019, Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and was accordingly, allowed to join in subsequent proceedings. 
5.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.2 has pleaded that on receipt of the Product on 15.03.2019, the same was examined for defects and after examination it was found that the handset had suffered physical damage. The Technicians of the Authorized Service Centre of answering Opposite Party duly informed the Complainant about the same and requested him to pay repair costs since the physical damages are not covered under the standard warranty terms & conditions applicable to the product. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
7.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
8.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties.
9.         The expression ‘defect’ as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads thus:-

“defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force (under any contract, express or implied or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”       

 

                Therefore, to establish any defect in the goods, it has to be proved by the Complainant that (a) there is a fault, imperfection or shortcoming; (b) such fault, imperfection etc. is in the quality, standard, etc.; (c) which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force; or (d) which is claimed by the Trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. 

10.         In the present case, in so far as the question of quality and standard of mobile handset is concerned, the same having been manufactured by Xiaomi – a reputed company, it can safely be presumed that if not better, the quality and standard of handset manufactured by above company would be at least at par with the quality and standard of other manufacturers of similar product.
11.         Now, the question arises as to whether the Complainant has proved on record that there exists defects in the mobile handset purchased.  The answer to this question is in affirmative.
12.         The documentary evidence brought on record by the Complainant to prove that the handset was defective, is adequate to substantiate that the handset was defective and speaks volumes about the quality and standard of the handset manufactured by the above company. No customer will purchase a product with a view to purchase headache.
13.         In the case of M/s Dominant Business Group Vs. A.K. Bansal and Co., Appeal No. 77 of 2016, decided on 28.06.2016, the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh has categorically observed that it is not expected that after purchase of a new machine, it would collapse within few months, as had happened in that case.
14.         Importantly, the Service Centre - Opposite Party No.3 (M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises) did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, as also to support the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2 and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. 
15.         Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has vociferously argued that Opposite Party No.3 - Authorized Service Centre received the Complainant’s product, examined it for defects and the Complainant was duly informed that the product was out of warranty since the produce had suffered physical damage and thus, the Complainant was required to pay the repair costs.  Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that Opposite Party No.3 failed to repair the handset under warranty and unlawfully demanded the amount and just to save their skin, levelled the allegation of physical damage. Per material on record, we are not impressed with the stand taken by Opposite Party No.2. The onus to prove the same was on the Opposite Party No.2. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has miserably failed to adduce any cogent, convincing and reliable documentary evidence, much less any technical report/affidavit of the concerned Engineer/Technician, to substantiate its claim that the product was out of warranty since the same had suffered physical damage. In the absence of which the assertions made by the Opposite Party No.2 are bald and thus, cannot be believed at its face value. Importantly, the self-serving affidavit of the Authorized Representative – Mr. Sameer B.S. Rao of the Opposite Party No.2 is not sufficient to prove the said fact.       The sequence of above leads to irresistible conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by the Complainant.
16.         No doubt, the mobile handset was under warranty for a period of one year. However, once it is proved on record that there is defect, imperfection in the quality of product and there is a manufacturing defect, the warranty amounts to guarantee to replace the product/ refund the amount charged against the product sold. A consumer would not like to purchase headache as is happened in the present case. Soon after its purchase, the mobile handset failed to give satisfactory performance which is expected from a product manufactured and sold by a reputed company like Xiaomi.   
17.         Admittedly, the Complainant purchased the handset from Opposite Party No.1 (M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.) which allows the third party sellers to list their products on their website. Once the product was sold at the platform of Opposite Party No.1, we are of the concerted opinion that Opposite Party No.1 is also liable if the product sold by a third party seller on their platform turned to be defective product or otherwise.
18.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.11,267/- to the Complainant;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for mental agony & harassment;

(iii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

19.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 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.
20.         The Complainant shall return the mobile handset in question to Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.
21.         In view of the present Consumer Complaint being partly allowed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
22.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
10/12/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	President
“Dutt”