BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No.5 of 2018

            Mr. Ali Reja Osmani,

            Wazid Manzil, Water Works Road, Silchar-1…………………………….      Complainant.           

                                                                        -V/S-

1.         Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

            12^th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana                 O.P No.1.

2.         Karbon Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.

            (Jaina Marketing And Associates) D-170, Okhla Industrial Area

            Phase-1, New Delhi-110020                                                                           O.P.No.2.

3.         IQOR Global Services India Pvt. Ltd.

            147, Sector-5, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon 122051, Haryana                           O.P.No.3.

4.         Mobile Techno Zone

            Amzadya Complex, 1^st Floor, Gopalganj, Thana Road, Silchar, Assam.     O.P.No.4.

5.         Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (ASSPL)

            Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1

            Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bengalore-560055, Karnataka  O.P.No.5.       

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                  President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                   

            Appeared :-                 Complainant Self.

                                                None for O.P.No.1 to 4.

Sri. Rahul Nath, Advocate for the O.P.No.5.

                           Date of Evidence………………………..        01-08-2018, 12-09-2018

                         Date of written argument………………       01-10-2018, 12-11-2018

                         Date of oral argument………………….       19-12-2018

                         Date of judgment……………………….       07-01-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                              Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. The Complainant Ali Reja Osmani purchased a Mobile Handset through online shopping of Amazon i.e O.P No.5 on 01/03/2015, vide order I.D No.403-8030001-7985968 and invoice No. RJ-SJAA-143428421-21465. Price of the said Mobile set was Rs.10,975/-. But on 22/02/2016 the said Handset handed over to the Service Centre at Silchar to Techno Zone (O.P.No.4) for repairing because the handset developed charging problem, device overheating, device hang etc. Accordingly, jobsheet issued vide jobsheet No.KJASPAS004216PI372 dated 22/02/2016.

2. On 12-03-2016 he received the repaired handset on which found “Mother Board” of the set has been changed and Metal Mesh” of the loudspeaker pit was missing. Accordingly, take back the handset by the service centre and issued jobsheet No.KJAS3004316P1430 dated 15/03/2016. But the O.P. did not return the repaired handset. Rather on 08/04/2016, the Area Sales Manager of Karbon Mobile India Ltd. Mr. Subhankar Banik informed the Complainant that the O.P. will send another device and asked the Complainant to collect it from Guwahati on 19/04/2016. Accordingly, the Complainant collected the set on 19/04/2016 but noticed that the device was not replaced as informed. Rather the set which has been handed over by him for repair to service centre has been given to the Complainant with defect in which its SIM-2 slot was not working. Hence, he again handed over the said handset on 22/04/2016 to service centre at Silchar vide jobsheet No. KJAPAS004518P1480 dated 24/05/2016. But the O.P.No.4 did not hand over the repaired handset. For which, on several time approached the O.Ps. and on correspondence the O.Ps. informed the Complainant that for the handset in question a Dead On Arrival (DOA) certificate should be issued and with that DOA certificate, the Complainant could collect a new handset from Distributor or dealer after paying additional difference an amount on their respective present market value. On 05/08/2016 DOA certificate was issued and on 27/08/2016 a swap handset was provided and elder brother of the Complainant collected it on payment of Rs.2,500/- as difference in market value between the handset under service and the swap handset. But for that amount Rs.2,500/- nothing recorded in the Bill.

3. As such the Complainant is aggrieved because the O.P. immorally charged additional amount of Rs.2,500/- when new handset was provided with higher value due to non-availability of parts or the handset in service was out of market. Accordingly, brought the Complaint against manufacturer, distributor, service centre and Amazon Seller Pvt. Ltd. for claiming Rs.2,03,160/- which includes compensation and recovery of the amount of Rs.2,500/-.

4. Notice issued to all the O.Ps. The O.P.No.1 to 4 did not contest the case. So, the case is proceeding exparte against them vide order dated 17/05/2018. However, the O.P.No.5 submitted W/S. In its W/S stated inter alia that the case is not maintainable against the said O.P. because the Complainant is not a Consumer of the answering O.P. Moreover, the answering O.P. is not involved in transaction between the Complainant and the seller.

5. During hearing the Complainant submitted his deposition and exhibited documents. The O.P.No.5 also submitted deposition of witness Sri. Rahul Sundaram. After closing evidence, both the Ld. Advocate of the O.P.No.5 and the Complainant submitted their written argument.

6. Perused the evidence on records. Perused the written argument and heard the oral argument of the Ld. Counsel of the O.P. and the Complainant too. In this case it is understandable that the Complainant handed over 3^rd occassion his mobile handset to the service centre on 24/05/2016 and obtain jobsheet No.KJASPAS004516PI480 dated 24/05/2016. But he did not receive back the repaired handset. Rather the O.P provided a new handset on the plea that the parts of handset in service is out market. Of course, to receive the new handset the Complainant was asked to pay Rs.2,500/- extra because price of the new handset was higher then the price of handset in service.

7. On receiving the said information the complainant did not raise objection, rather collected the handset on payment of addition charge of Rs.2,500/- and now praying for compensation for disservice, unfair trade practice etc. of the O.P.No.1 to 4. The Complainant in his complaint and in the evidence took a plea that his elder brother collected the handset by payment of Rs.2,500/- and if he would collect the same may raise objection to pay additional amount.

8. In that aspect, on meticulous perusal of documents exhibited, I do not find any adverse evidence for collection of the new handset with objection.

9. As such in my considered view I do not find any convincing material on record to conclude that O.P.No. 1 to 4 committed any disservice or deficiency in service or committed any unfair Trade practice. Moreover, from evidence on record I do not find any disservice in the part of the O.P.No.5. Thus, in this case no relief can be provided to the Complainant. Therefore, this case is dismissed on contest against O.P.No.5 and on exparte against O.P.No.1 to 4.

10. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 7^th day of January, 2019.