DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th day of April 2013

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 16/05/2012

(C.C.No.92/2012)

Murukesan,

S/o.Kuttaru (late),

Girish Bhavan,

Mayapallam, Kanjikode,

Palakkad- 678 621 - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Sivadasan) 

V/s

1.Naptol Online Shopping Pvt.Ltd.,

Nakamichi, H.No.8-2-82/4,

1^st Floor, Opp.Lorenzo,

Tiles Ware House,

Old Bowenpally,

Secunderabad – 500 011

(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)

2.Nakamichi Techno Pvt.Ltd.,

Plot No.284, Lane 3, West End Marg,

Saidulajab, New Delhi – 110 030 - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Complainant after seeing an advertisement in the newspapers as well as in the mega T.V.Channel under the caption “smart and stylish mini laptop with Wifi connectivity for Rs.5999/-” ordered for the same on 1/3/2012 as per order No.3572992. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and 2^nd opposite party is the importer of the laptop. The 1^st opposite party accepted the order and sent the product in the complainant’s address through Blue Dart Courier, as VPP. On 10/3/12 the complainant by making the payment of Rs.6199/- as the cost as well as the other taxes took delivery of the laptop.

The packing of the laptop contained the user manual as well as the warranty card. After gone through the user manual carefully the complainant opened the packet and operated the computer. To the utter dismay of the complainant it was found that there was no internet and wifi access as advertised by 1^st opposite party. With great shock the complainant understood that the opposite parties jointly and severally cheated him. Then the complainant contacted the opposite parties through phone, but the opposite parties did not take any care to redress the grievance. Subsequently the opposite parties kept away from attending the phone calls from the complainant. The complainant understood that he was cheated by supplying a substandard product of laptop without having any features of a laptop. The laptop has got a warranty and it bears the model No.EW100. The system has no access of wifi connectivity as promised by the opposite parties and the system also did not have internet access. The persisting problem with the computer was a very serious nature and it is patent in nature and it cannot be rectified and is to be replaced. The complainant has personally contacted 1^st opposite party for an amicable settlement, but they instead of trying to settle the dispute has abused him with filthy words. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.31,999/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and pay the cost of the proceedings.

1^st opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The 1^st opposite party company is an online shopping portal and not a manufacturer or dealer of any products in any manner. The 1^st opposite party provides for an online platform for marketing different products and is no way related or connected to the manufacture, production of goods or the quality control measures. The 2^nd opposite party had offered its product through 1^st opposite party which was purchased by the complainant. The quality and specifications are assured by 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has no control over the same. The 1^st opposite party denies all other averments contained in the complaint.

Notice served to 2^nd opposite party. But 2^nd opposite party absent and was set exparte. Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Matter heard. Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed argument notes.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1 & 2

We perused relevant documents on record. Ext.A1 is the warranty card issued by the 2^nd opposite party shown that 6 months warranty on mini note book. According to the complainant advertisement in the newspapers as well as in the T.V. channel under the caption “smart and stylish mini laptop with wifi connectivity for Rs.5999/-” ordered for the same. The complainant has not produced evidence to show the advertisement. 2^nd opposite party is the importer of the laptop and not filed version or affidavit. According to 1^st opposite party they are the online shopping portal and not a manufacturer or dealer of any products in any manner.

Moreover 1^st opposite party stated that the quality and specifications are assured by the 2^nd opposite party.

In the present situation more products were purchased through online shopping on the basis of advertisement. The complainant stated that after gone through the user manual carefully, he has opened the packet and operated the computer. Complainant stated that there was no internet and wifi access as advertised by the 1^st opposite party. Further complainant stated that the computer is having serious and inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant has not taken steps to prove the manufacturing defects of the computer. Also the complainant has not taken steps to prove that the computer has no internet and wifi access. The 1^st opposite party has not raised contention regarding the internet and wifi access. The 2^nd opposite party was set exparte. Ext.A2 shown the user manual issued by 2^nd opposite party. Ext.A3 shown the packing of laptop plastic cover contains both the address of opposite parties. In Ext.A3 mentioned with Rs.6199/- as the amount for smart and stylish mini laptop with wifi connectivity. It is evident from Ext.A3 that the opposite parties had sent the laptop to the complainant. According to the 1^st opposite party the company is an online shopping portal and not a manufacturer or dealer of any product. But both opposite parties had advertised the mini laptop with wifi connectivity.

Both opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that they had sent mini laptop with wifi connectivity. The notice to 2^nd opposite party returned with endorsement that “Refused”. Also the 2^nd opposite party was not present and was set exparte. The complainant stated that the opposite parties kept away from attending the phone calls.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry 9percentage  interest per annum from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of April 2013.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Warranty card issued by the opposite parties under the caption

“Fujezone’

Ext.A2 – Unser manual issued by the opposite parties under the caption

“Fujezone”

Ext.A3 – Packing of Lap Top Cover (Plastic cover) containing both address of

opposite parites as well as complainant.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Cost

Rs. 1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 16/05/2012

CC / 92/ 2012

Murukesan,

S/o.Kuttaru(Late),

Girish Bhavan, Mayapallam, - Complainant

Kanjikode, Palakkad -678 621

(By ADV.K.Sivadasan)

Vs

1. Naptol Online Shopping Pvt.Ltd,

Nakamichi, H.No.8-2-82/4 - Opposite Parties

1^st Floor, Opp.Lorenzo, Tiles Ware House,

Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-500 011

2. Nakamichi Techo Pvt.Ltd,

Plot 284 Lane 3, West End Marg,

Saidulajab, New Delhi 110 030

O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT

Complainant absent. Absent for so many postings. Notice also issued for appearance. Today posted as steps finally. No representation. It seems that the complainant is not interested in proceeding with the case. Hence dismissed for default.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of July, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member