BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.457 of 2015

Date of Instt. 20.10.2015

Date of Decision : 05.09.2016

Amit Arora C/o Vishal Megha Mart, near BMC Chowk, near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s WS Retail Services Private Ltd., 42/1 and 43, Kacheranknahalli Village Jadigenahalli Hoblihoskote Taluk, Bangalore-67 through its M.D.

2.M/s Newrays Enterprises, SCO-11, Khurana Complex, Canal Road, near Adarsh Nagar Gurudwara, Jalandhar-2.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Naveen Chabbra Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased Moto-G mobile set through OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.12,849/- vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 with warranty period of one year. The complainant submitted that the said mobile set created problems and was not working properly. The complainant approached the OP No.2, authorized service centre of Moto Mobile Company and handed over the mobile set to them on 14.2.2015 and returned the same to the complainant after repair. After sometime the said mobile set again did not give proper service and the complainant again handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 on 10.3.2015 with “Network Problem”. The OP No.2 returned the mobile set to the complainant after rectifying the defect in the mobile set but thereafter the mobile set again became defective and the complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 on dated 7.7.2015. Again OP No.2 repaired the mobile set and returned to the complainant but again it did not work properly. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 20.8.2015 upon the OPs but inspite of that the OP neither repaired the mobile set nor replaced the same with new one. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to change the mobile set with new one or to refund its price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply pleaded that OP No.1 is a registered seller on the website “flipkar.com” and sells the products of other manufacturers/ traders etc through website and not selling any goods manufactured or produced on its own. The warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer and not by the OP No.1. No dispute has been contemplated under The Consumer Protection Act between the complainant and OP No.1. OP No.1 submitted that as a goodwill gesture, OP No.1 provides 30 days replacement warranty to its customers but the complainant in the present case did not face any problem with the product within these 30 days from the date of purchase of the product. The complainant approached OP No.2 for the first time through job sheet dated 14.2.2015, whereas the complainant purchased this mobile set on 5.11.2014 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than three months. The warranty of the product is to be provided by the manufacturer and not by the seller i.e. OP No.1.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and evidence of the OP No.1 was closed by order.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Moto-G mobile set through OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.12,849/- vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C1 with warranty period of one year. The complainant submitted that the said mobile set created problems and was not working properly. The complainant approached the OP No.2, authorized service centre of Moto Mobile Company and handed over the mobile set to them on 14.2.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C3 and returned the same to the complainant after repair. After sometime the said mobile set again did not give proper service and the complainant again handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 on 10.3.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C2 with “Network Problem”. The OP No.2 returned the mobile set to the complainant after rectifying the defect in the mobile set but thereafter the mobile set again became defective and the complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 7.7.2015 Ex.C5. Again OP No.2 repaired the mobile set and returned to the complainant but again it did not work properly. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 20.8.2015 Ex.C6 upon the OPs but inspite of that the OP neither repaired the mobile set nor replaced the same with new one. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that OP No.1 is a registered seller on the website “flipkar.com” and sells the products of other manufacturers/traders etc through website and not selling any goods manufactured or produced on its own. The warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer and not by the OP No.1. No dispute has been contemplated under 'The Consumer Protection Act' between the complainant and OP No.1. However, OP No.1 submitted that as a goodwill gesture, OP No.1 provides 30 days replacement warranty to its customers but the complainant in the present case did not face any problem with the product within these 30 days from the date of purchase of the product. The complainant approached OP No.2 for the first time through job sheet dated 14.2.2015, whereas the complainant purchased this mobile set on 5.11.2014 vide invoice Ex.C1 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than three months. The warranty of the product is to be provided by the manufacturer and not by the seller i.e. OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Moto-G mobile set manufactured by Moto Mobile Company through OP No.1 online vide invoice dated 5.11.2014 Ex.C1 and the mobile set was delivered to the complainant on 11.11.2014 as admitted by the complainant in para No.3 of his complaint. The said mobile set became defective with “Networking Problem” and the complainant approached the OP No.2, authorized service centre of Moto Mobile Company vide job sheet dated 14.2.2015 Ex.C3. The said mobile set was repaired and handed over to the complainant. Again the said mobile set gave problem of networking and the complainant approached OP No.2 on 10.3.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C2 with the same problem of networking. The mobile set was again rectified and returned to the complainant and thereafter the mobile set gave same problem of networking on 7.7.2015 and the complainant again approached OP No.2 on 7.7.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C5. Again, mobile set was repaired and returned to the complainant. The complainant submitted that even thereafter the mobile set was giving the same problem and the complainant served legal notice dated 28.8.2015 Ex.C6 upon the OPs, the complainant fully know that the warranty is to be fulfilled by the manufacturer i.e. Moto Mobile Company and not by the OP No.1 who is only reseller online of the product manufactured by other and not by OP No.1. This product i.e. mobile in question was manufactured by Moto Mobile Company and the warranty terms and conditions are to be fulfilled by Moto Mobile Company and not by OP No.1 but the complainant neither served any legal notice to the Moto Mobile Company nor made said Moto Mobile Company as party to the present complaint. The liability of OP No.2 is to repair the mobile set manufactured by Moto Mobile Company, they have no authority either to replace the same or refund the amount of the mobile set to the consumer/customer. Here in this case, the complainant fully knowing all these facts, did not make Moto Mobile Manufacturing Company as party to the present complaint. As such, no order can be passed against OP No.2 regarding replacement of the mobile set of the complainant with new one or refund of the price amount of the mobile set alongwith interest as claimed by the complainant in the present complaint because the duty of OP No.2 is only to repair the mobile set within warranty period without charging any amount from the complainant. Now the warranty of the mobile set has already expired as more than one year has been elapsed, so, this Forum can not pass any order against OP No.2 for the repair of the mobile set as now it is not within warranty.

10. Consequently, we hold that OPs No.1 & 2 are not liable to do any service to the mobile set of the complainant beyond period of warranty which has already expired. Resultantly, we hold that complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

05.09.2016 Member President