Karnataka

Yadagiri

CC/2/2021

SRINIVAS S/O RAMANNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic india pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of filing 23.02.2021

Date of order 13.02.2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AT YADGIRI.

DATE: 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.

PRESENTS

SRI.A.S.SADALGE., B.A., LL.B.,(Spl) PRESIDENT (I/c)

SRI. M.LOKESH, B.A. LL.B., ( Spl.) – MEMBER

 

COMPLAINT No.02/2021

COMPLAINANT :

Sri.Srinivas, S/o. Ramanna, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o. Bhovi Galli, Surapur, Tq. Surapur. Dist. Yadagiri-585224.    (In person)

OPPOSITE PARTY/ IES:

01.Panasoic India Pvt. Ltd., (Manufactured) 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurugram, Haryanan-122002. India. (Ex-parte)   02.E-Trade marketing Pvt. Ltd., No. #633b, Udyoga Vihara, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana -122016. India. (Ex-parte)   03.Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Building Alyassa, Begonia, And Clove Embassy Tech Village,Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Village Bengaluru -560 103.    (By Sri. V.V.K. Adv. For Op.3)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

BY. Sri.  A.S.SADALGE.,PRESIDENT:-

 

1.       The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act -2019   praying to direct the Ops to pay Rs.5,000/- the value of the Mobile with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 14.12020 to till realization and direct the Ops to pay  Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant has placed order on 11.12.2020 in a website www. Flipkart.com to supply the Panasonic ELUGA-16 ( black-16GB) warranty of one year available for mobile and 6 months for accessory accordingly on 14.12.2020 at about 12.30 p.m., the mobile was delivered to him he paid Rs.5000/- the price of the said mobile, but he found that the said mobile is defective, while charging the mobile the mobile heat less than charger heat.  The battery is completely defective if a screen is brightness the charge will come down within a short period, on 16.12.2020 he has informed to the Ops in flipkart website through help chat and requested them to take back the mobile and pay Rs.5000/- to him. But the Ops have not informed regarding the take back the mobile, thereafter he tried to informed over phone, but the Ops have not received his call. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops, in the advertisement it is published that if once mobile is charged it will work minimum 2 days. But the mobile set as well as battery are defective. Hence the complainant has constrained to file this complaint accordingly prayed to allow the compliant and grant reliefs as preyed.

 

3.       After admitting the complainant this commission has issued the notice to OPs. After service of the notice OP.3 appeared through his counsel inspite of service  of notice Op.1 and 2 have not appeared, hence placed ex-parte.

Op.3 has filed written version denying the allegation made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts. The Op.3  flipkart internet private limited is  a company engaged, among others in providing trading / selling facility over the internet through its website www flipkart.com and mobile application collectively referred to as the “Flipkart platform “ the Op.3 is an online market place  e-commerce entity as defined under Consumer Protection Act-2019. It is electronic market place model E-commerce platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between  independent third –party sellers and independent end customers these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by  different persons.  The Op.3 does not directly or indirectly sell any products on flipkart platform rather all the products on flipkart platform are sold third-party sellers, who avail of the online market place service provided by the Op.3. The Op.3 further contended that any kind of assurance whether in terms of warranty on products, price discounts promotional offers, delivery after sale service or otherwise are offered and provided by the manufacture of the respective sell of the products sold on filpkart platform.   The Op.3 neither offers nor provides any assurance or replacement or refund to the end buyers of the product, So, no relief sought against the Op.3 can be granted in given facts and circumstance, the product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by Op.3.  There is no any deficiency of service on the part of Op.3, so the complaint is liable to dismiss. Accordingly requested to dismiss the complaint.

 

4.       Even though sufficient opportunity given to the complainant he has not lead any evidence and not got marked any documents. The Op.3 filed affidavit evidence of authorized signature as RW.1 and got marked two documents at Ex.R.1 and R.2. The learned counsel for Op.3 filed written arguments and submitted oral arguments.

 

5.       We have perused the records.

Now the points for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?

 

3. What order

 

 

6.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:

Point No.1:   Negative.

Point No.3:  Negative. 

Point No.4.As per the final order

 

REASONS

POINT NO.1

7.       It is the case of complainant that he has purchased the mobile on 11.12.2020 it was delivered to him on 14.12.2020 he has paid Rs.5000/- as price of the said mobile, the mobile was one year warranty and 6 month warranty accessories, but the said mobile and inbuilt battery or defective, he has informed this fact to the OPs and requested to take back the mobile and pay the Rs.5000/-, but they have not any reply.   The complainant has produced tax invoice which so that he has purchase the hand set Panasonic ELUGA-16 for Rs.5000/-, he has also produced flipkart website help chat. But he has not choonse to file his affidavit evidence, even he has not got marked the documents.  No doubt the Op.1 and 2 remained absent and place ex-parte, but the Op.3 has appeared and filed written version, wherein denied allegation in the complaint. Under such circumstance the heavy burden is on the complainant to prove that the mobile is defective.  The learned counsel for the Op.3 submitted that the onus proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaint’s under the Consumer Protection Act.  In support of his contention relied on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009 in case SGS India limited Vs. Dolphin International Ltd.,  and another decision Hon’ble Supreme court in CA No. 8701 of 1997 in case Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Airlines and others.

 

8.       The RW.1 in affidavit evidence deposed as per w/v we have perused   the decision relied by the learned counsel for Op.3 in this case the complainant has not adduced any evidence.  Under such circumstance mere allegation in the complaint not suffice to accept the case of the complainant. The complainant has not produce any peace of paper to show the mobile is defective. Hence we hold that complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence we answer this point in negative.

POINT NO. 2.

9.       As we have answered point No.1 in negative complainant is not entitle for any relief, hence we answer this point in negative.

 

POINT NO.3

10.     In view of our findings on above points we proceed to pass the following .

ORDER

1.  The complaint filed by the complainant under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is hereby dismissed, no order for cost.

2.       Free copy may be sent to the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, typed by him, corrected by us and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 13^th day of February 2023)

 

 

Sri.M.Lokesh,      MEMBER,

Sri.A.S.Sadalge.,     PRESIDENT,

 

 

 

 

1.) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS

  MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT     

 

Evidence by way of Affidavit on behalf of complainant:

Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

Nil-   

         

2) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF OP

 

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF OP :

PW-1 :            Sri. Sanchi  Chabbar.,  Athorized Signatory  of OP.3

                      (Flipkart internet Pvt.Ltd.,

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

Exh.R-1      -        Xerox copy of Legal notice to reply letter.   

Exh.R-2      -        Xerox copy of complaint letter

 

Sri.M.Lokesh, MEMBER

Sri.A.S.Sadalge., PRESIDENT,