Haryana

Kurukshetra

215/2017

Sachin Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rocket Comm - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.215 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.10.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:03.10.2018.

Sachin Garg son of Sh. Rajpal Garg, r/o House No.191, near Bus Stand, Railway Road, Dhand, Distt. Kaithal-136020.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Rocket Kommerce LLP.
2. Amazon.in, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India.
3. New Mass Communication, Shop No.152, First Floor, Mughal Canal Road, Karnal, Haryana (132001), Mobile No.9355913051.
4. Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehranli, Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, near Maharana Partap Chowk, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Ops No.1, 3 & 4 exparte.   

                Sh. W.C.Juneja, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sachin Garg against Rocket Kommerce LLP and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Motorola from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.13,500/- on 11.10.2016.  It is alleged that after some time of its purchase, the said mobile set became defective with the problems of hanging, networking and switch off automatically.  It is alleged that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the service-centre of Ops but despite installation of software, the mobile set was giving the same problems.  The complainant requested the Ops several times for repair or replace the mobile set with the new one but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set with the new one or to refund the cost of mobile set and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.1, 3 & 4 did not appear.  Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 01.02.2018 and Ops No.3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 19.04.2018.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint has been wrongly filed by the complainant against “Amazon.In” as there is no such entity concerned with the website www.amazon.in (“Website”).  It is submitted that in fact M/s. Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd. (ASSPL/Op No.2”) is the owner of above-said website and ASSPL does not sell or offers to sell any products and neither does ASSPL advertise or endorse any product or service on its Website or anywhere else and it merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale.  Therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the Website.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of motor service record as Annexure-C1 and copy of bill as Annexure C2 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the Op No.2 and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, the grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set purchased by the complainant on 11.10.2016 became defective within the guarantee/warranty period with the problems of hanging, networking and switch off automatically.  The complainant deposited the mobile set in the service-centre of Ops but  despite installation of software, the above-said defects were not removed from the mobile set.  To prove his case, the complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the above-said affidavit, the complainant has also supported his versions by the documents Annexure C1 & Annexure C2.  Whereas, on the other hand, the contention of Op No.2 is that they are the service-provider only.  The complainant has purchased the mobile set in question through internet on the site of “Amazon” and they are not liable for any defects in the mobile set.  But this contention of Op No.2 has no force because the complainant has purchased the mobile set in question through internet on the site of “Amazon”, so, the “Amazon” is also liable for its negligence to provide defective mobile set to the complainant.  Moreover, the Op no.2 did not produce any evidence.  The Ops No.1, 3 & 4 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops.  In this context, we can rely upon the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission Chhattisgarh, Raipur in case bearing appeal No.FA/2018/05 titled as Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Love Kumar Sahoo and others decided on 07.02.2018, wherein “Amazon” is also liable for providing services.  Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the mobile set in question became defective within the warranty/guarantee period.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from the Ops.

7.            Thus, in view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that if the same model of mobile set is not available with the OPs, then the Ops are directed to pay the purchased amount of mobile set to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old mobile set and accessories with the service center of the company.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:03.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.