Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 364.
Instituted on : 21.06.2017.
Decided on : 26.02.2019.
Dinesh Rathee son of Rajbir, Age 34 years, r/o H.No.332/29F, Ram Gopal Colony, Delhi Road, Rohtak. Mobile no.9466460222.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Paytm, B-121, Sector-5, Noida-201301(UP) through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
- Salora International Ltd., D-13/14, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Prop./Authorized person.
- Salora International Ltd., SSN Logistic Private Limited D.Nos.688, 689 & 14 Gundlapochampally(near Kompally) Medchal Mandal, R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana-500014, through its Managing Director/Authorised Person.
- M.D. Leeco, Ground Floor, Beech E-1, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nayawara Bangalore-560045.
- M.D., Leeco, Rolex Logistics Pvt. Ltd., #85 1st Floor, 5th Main Domlur 11 stage, Bangalore-560071.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.T.D.Joshi Assistant for opposite party No.2 & 3.
Opposite party No.4 & 5 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he placed an order for a mobile Phone Le2 32 Grey(LeEco Le 232 Gb(Grey) brearing IEMI No.862539032441161 through Paytm/respondent no.1 and paid Rs.11999/-. That when the complainant opened the parcel, he found that seal of box was tampered, after opening the box, it was found that the mobile was not in working condition as the same was defective one as it has charging and other problems therein. That complainant complained to the respondents many times about the defective mobile phone through email dated 3.5.2017and 4.5.2017 and requested to change the said defective mobile but the respondents did not response so far. That the act of opposite parties of sending the defective mobile and not to replace the same is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone in question with new one or to return the amount of Rs.11999/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that opposite party No.1 is the owner of the website www.paytm.com which is an online market place and acts as a platform for different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers subject to the terms and conditions as enumerated on the website of opposite party No.1. That complainant has falsely alleged that the package seal of the box in which the product was kept was broken at the time when the product was delivered to the complainant. That the complainant has further wrongly alleged that the product was defective since it was not getting charged. The fact of the matter is that, the complainant on false pretext wanted to return the product and for this he raised a complaint before the customer service centre of OP No.1 on 27.04.2017 wherein he stated that the charger of the mobile was not working. That the opposite party informed the complainant to visit the authorized service centre of the manufacturer since the product purchased by the complainant was covered under manufacturer warranty of one year for mobile phone and for 6 months for accessories. The complainant failed to approach the manufacturer or the service centre for resolution of his disputes despite the requests and recommendation of OP no.1. That opposite party no.1 being merely a marketplace, cannot be held liable for a defects faced by the complainant. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their written statement has submitted that the mobile purchased by the complainant through OP No.1 was manufactured by OP No.4 & 5. That opposite party No.2 & 3 are only traders, thus the liability of replacing the mobile set of the complainant would lie on OP No.1, 4 & 5 being seller and manufacturer. That opposite party no.1 never informed the answering opposite party no.2 & 3 that the box containing the mobile phone of the complainant is tampered or broken. That no email was received by the OP No.2 & 3 as the same were addressed to OP no.1. That OP No.2 & 3 are not liable to pay Rs.11999/- or any compensation to the complainant and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However, OP no.4 & 5 were given up by the complainant being unnecessary vide his separately recorded statement dated 12.01.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C19 and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the Court order dated 26.09.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A, documents Ex.OPW/1 to Ex.OPW1/4 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.11.2018. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 in their evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.D2/1 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per paytm order Ex.C4 and Invoice Ex.C5, complainant had purchased the mobile in question for a sum of Rs.11999/- on dated 21.04.2017 which was sold by the opposite party No.2 & 3. The parcel sent by the opposite party no.1 was tampered and the product in question was defective and the complainant sent emails to the opposite party No.1 to replace the same. As per copy of email Ex.C6, complainant has informed the opposite party No.1 that the charger was not working. Complainant made so many complaints to OP No.1 and also sent the photographs of product which are placed on record as Ex.C7 to Ex.C13. As per copy of email Ex.C11, opposite party No.1 has informed that since the product was under manufacturer warranty, he should visit the nearest service center.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile purchased by the complainant was defective from the day of its purchase and the pack seal of the product was broken which is mentioned in the email Ex.C12/Ex.OPW1/2 and the same didn’t work after purchase. Since the product in dispute was delivered by the opposite party No.2 & 3 through opposite party No.1 to the complainant and the payment towards the cost of the product was also received by the opposite party No.1. Also opposite party No.1 was duty bound to the complainant. Hence there is definitely a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 to 3.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant. As such, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 to 3 are, hereby, jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.11999/- say Rs.12000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.06.2017 till its realization and shall also to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
