BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : PRESIDENT (I/C)

SRI. VIJU V.R                                             : MEMBER

C.C. No. 527/2013 Filed on 12.12.2013

ORDER DATED: 18.02.2020

Complainant:

Preman. V, Pallangyamele Roadarikathu Puthen House, Cheeraput Village, Kollode, Malayinkil, Thiruvananthapuram-695 571.

   (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1.  M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd., represented by the Managing Director, DTDC, Khassra No. 1226, Rajoukri Village, New Delhi-110 038.  
2. The Manager, M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd., New Asokh Nagar, New Delhi-110 096.

(By Advs. M.A. Rasheed & S. Reghukumar)

Addl. Opposite parties:

3. Wespro Digital Pvt. Ltd., 4/5, Shubhada, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 030.
4. Wespro Digital Pvt. Ltd., B-50, 3^rd Floor, Pravasi Ind. Est. Co-op. Society Ltd., Vishweshar Nagar Road, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 063.
5. Mass Technologies, LR Plaza, Kaithamukku, Fort Road, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.

This case having been heard on 24.12.2019, the Forum on 18.02.2020 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging that he had ordered a mini laptop on seeing an advertisement in flash news paper dated 17.01.2012.   He had ordered the laptop through opposite parties 1 & 2.  He had paid Rs. 6,300/- as cost of the product and spend Rs. 300/- as postal charges. The product was delivered to the complainant on 27.01.2012, but he was unable to use it as it was damaged.  The front glass of the laptop was unfixed.  On the same day itself the complainant filed a complaint.  Again he made a complaint through online about the non-functioning of the battery and ordered a new one.   On 02.10.2013 he received bra-pad instead of battery.  He again made complaint about this through online, but he didn’t get any response from opposite parties 1 & 2.  On 21.10.2013 opposite parties 1 & 2 requested the complainant to resend the items he received, but the complainant didn’t resend the products. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 averred that they are only a platform to the various sellers and brands for selling of different goods to the customers all over India at most reasonable prices and works as service provider between customer and seller. They are neither working as a seller nor a manufacturer of products. They are only a service provider and if there is any defect to the product delivered the manufacturer is liable and not opposite parties 1 & 2.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 again allege that the complainant has registered complaint only on 02.10.2013 and not on 27.01.2012.  So that the product doesn’t have warranty i.e; it is only for 1 year. They averred that the product or battery might have got defected due to normal wear and tear from the complainant’s side.  They have not given any assurance that the product will be replaced.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1& 2.   Hence complaint may be dismissed.

Opposite parties 3 to 5 were set ex-parte.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed chief affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 and has produced 7 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P7.   He was cross-examined by opposite parties 1 & 2.  Even though opposite parties 1 & 2 filed chief affidavit-in-lieu of chief examination they were not present for cross examination, hence their evidence was closed.  The complainant as well as opposite parties 1 & 2 filed argument note.  From Ext. P2 & P3 it can be seen that the complainant has ordered a mini laptop.  Even though the complainant was cross examined nothing was brought out by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that they delivered a laptop without any damage.  Since opposite parties 3 to 5 were ex-parte the defect to the mini laptop as alleged by the complainant has to be accepted.  So the contention raised by the complainant regarding the damages of the laptop has to be believed.  The complainant has raised another contention that instead of battery the opposite parties have delivered another product which he was not ordered.  It can be seen from Ext. P4 that it was not the battery but some other product which was not ordered by the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 can very well prove by producing the online booking done by the complainant whether he has ordered for battery or for any other product.  But they have not done that. So the contentions raised by the complainant has to be accepted.

It is not the case of opposite parties 1 & 2 that they are providing purely gratuitous service to its customers, without any consideration.  It is certainly not the case of opposite parties 1 & 2 that it is a charitable organization involved in     e-commerce with no business returns for themselves.  Therefore the plea raised by opposite parties 1 & 2 that they are neither the supplier nor the manufacturer of the products cannot be accepted and therefore opposite parties 1 & 2 cannot claim exoneration.

An agent who sells a product is duty bound to ensure its quality and if the product is found defective agent shall be vicariously liable for the loss caused to the purchaser along with the manufacturer of the product.  Hence we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 to 5. Hence the opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 18^th day of February 2020.  

        Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR  : PRESIDENT (I/C)

       Sd/-

                                                                        VIJU V.R                               : MEMBER   

jb        

C.C. No. 527/2013 

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Preman. V

II       COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Flash newspaper showing the advertisement

P2         - Copy of invoice for VPP Value Rs. 5,998/-

P3     - Copy of system generated chalan

P4     - Invoice for VPP Value Rs. 17,120/-

P5     - Copy of V.P. Article Receipt

P6     - Wespro warranty policy terms and conditions

P7     - Warranty card

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

IV      OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL 

                                                                                                                   Sd/-

PRESIDENT (I/C)

jb