DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 66 of  2023

 

 

Sri Avik Paul,

S/O- Sri Bidyut Chandra  Pal,

Bhattapukur Par, Near Mordern Club,

Agartala, P.O. A.D. Nagar,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799003. ...........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. One Plus Corporate Office,

Registered Address:- 5th Floor, 

Kabra Excelsior, Opposite Wipro Park 80 Ft. Road,

Koramangala, 1st Block, 

Bangalore, Karnataka, India,

Pin- 560025.

 

 

2.One Plus Service Centre 

FIFE Complex, A 53(First Floor), 

Okhla Phase II, Okhla Industrial Estate, 

New Delhi -110020. ….....Opposite parties    

 

 

3.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited,

Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, 

Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram(W),

P.O. Malleswaram(W),

P.S. Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore,

Karnataka, 560055. .........Pro-forma Opposite Party.

 

 

  

________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For  the  O.P. No.1 & 2 : Exparte.

For the O.P. No.3 : Sri Somnath Roy,

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 by Sri Avik Pal of Bhattapukur Par, Agartala here-in-after called the “Complainant” against (1) One Plus Corporate Office, Bangalore, Karnataka here-in-after called the “O.P. No.1”, (2) One Plus Service Centre, FIFE Complex,  Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi here-in-after called the “O.P. No.2” and (3) Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka here-in-after called the “O.P. No.3” alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

1.1 The case in short is that the complainant purchased a smartphone of One Plus Brand of model no. One Plus 9 5G(Astral Black, 8GB RAM, 128 GB Storage) B089MT34QG(OP9-ABLK-8-128GB) from the O.P. No.3 on payment of Rs.49,999/- vide invoice no- SCCG-10894, dated 16.04.2021. 

1.2 On 23.04.2021 he received the smartphone and started using it. In the month of September, 2022 after updating the User Interface System(UI) it was detected that some internal display problem arose which was serious and thereafter the complainant could not use the said phone.  He contacted with the O.P. No.1 for repair of the phone but as the phone was out of warranty  he was asked to borne the necessary charges for repairing. 

1.3 On 12.10.2022 the complainant raised service request for repairing  the said phone in One Plus App ie., the official App of One Plus Brand. On 13.10-.2022 O.P. No.1 confirmed service request vide no. ID G7PUUX50WNPL through SMS in the registered mobile number of the complainant. 

1.4 On 14.10.2022 the smartphone was picked up by the authorized logistic executives of the O.P. No.1 duly acknowledged by the O.P. No.1 through SMS. On 04.11.2022 the complainant was informed that after repairing the defective smartphone it will be returned within 15 days to the complainant. 

1.5 On 10.12.2022 the complainant was informed that the O.P. No.1  received the smartphone and it was sent to the workshop. But after one hour the representative of the O.P. No.2 contacted the complainant over telephone   and informed that they have received a blue shirt instead of defective smartphone to which the complainant raised serious objection and protested but the concerned official misbehaved with the complainant and disconnected the call. Thereafter the O.P. No.2 returned an blue shirt to the complainant on 14.12.2022. 

1.6 On 17.02.2022 the complainant again registered complaint vide no- ID CAFKDMLGYCKJ in One Plus Care App  that he did not receive the smart phone rather he received one blue shirt. Thereafter the O.P. No.1 collected the blue shirt  on 22.12.2022. 

1.7 Thereafter the O.P. No.1 and 2 till date did not respond  to any queries of the complainant nor did they repaired the mobile phone or in alternative the defective mobile phone.

1.8 Legal Notice was served to the O.Ps on 01.02.2023 but to no good. 

1.9 Hence, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission for getting redress.

 

2. The case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. No.1 & 2. 

2.1 The O.P. No.3 filed written objection denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. 

2.2 The main defense of the O.P. No.3 is tht the product was sold by the seller and not by the O.P. No.3 and the seller of the product has not been impleaded a party in this case. The O.P. No.3  is a e-platform for communication only, hence, the O.P. No.3  is not responsible for any loss to the complainant.

 

3. Hearing argument of the complainant and O.P. No.3 the following points is taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

4. Admittedly the complainant contacted the O.P. No.3, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing the smart phone and paid the amount of Rs.49999/- to the O.P. No.3. It is the duty of the O.P. No.3 to procure the product from the intending seller with whom the O.P. No.3 has business tie-up. 

 

4.1 The O.P. No.1 and 2 are the agents of O.P. No.3 whose duty is to send the mart phone to the complainant and repair in case of any defect. 

 

4.2 In the case at hand the complainant received the defective smart phone and it was duly informed to the O.Ps. Being directed, the complainant send the phone to the O.P. No.1, the agent of O.P. No.3..

 

4.3 On 13.10.2022 the O.P. No.1 confirmed the service request and on 14.10.2022  the smart phone was picked up by the logistic executive of the O.P. No.1 which was duly acknowledged also. But after that the representative of O.P. No.2 informed the complainant that he received a blue shirt instead of the smart phone and the O.P. No.2 returned the blue shirt to the complainant meaning thereby the O.P. No.2 although confirmed  receiving the smart phone either did not deliver the smart phone to the O.P. No.2 or O.P. No.2 committed any mistake in the transaction of business for which the complainant can not be held responsible. Therefore, the O.P. No. 1 and 2 being representative of O.P. No.3 are jointly and severally responsible to provide proper and adequate service to the complainant which they have failed. As such the stand of O.P. No.3  that he is not the seller of the smart phone is devoid of merit as it is the O.P. No.3 who collected money from the complainant with assurance to reach the smart  phone to the complainant and remove the manufacturing defect, if any.

 

5. The point is accordingly decided against the O.Ps.

6. In the result, it is ordered that the O.Ps are hugely deficient in service and shall return the sum of Rs.49,999/- to the complainant with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from 16.04.2021 till the date of actual payment and shall pay a further sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation inclusive of litigation cost. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the award.

7. The case stands disposed off.   

8. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.