IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of May, 2016
Filed on 20.05.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.154/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Syamlal Sasi Sri. Sachin Bansal
Malayiltharayil House Director, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
Puthiyavila P.O. No. 447/C, 1st Floor, 1st A Class
Kayamkulam – 690 531 12th Main, 4th Block, Koramangala
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 034
(By Adv. Seethu Dinesh)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Nikon AF-S Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR lens on 10th July, 2013. The product has 2 years warranty. The product is observed to have focusing defect on November, 2014, hence forth the product was taken to Nikon Service Centre at Kochi. But he was informed by the company professions that purchase from on line web pages are not supported by Nikon India Private Ltd. The complainant informed the same to Flipkart. The solution provided by Flipkart was to refund the money which he paid on July, 2014. But the complainant was not ready for it, since the price of the product has gone increased significantly and also the product replaced could not be in warranty. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The involvement of the opposite party is of a intermediary only ie. to provide on line plat-form to facilitate the transaction in the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its web site. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has not committed in a fraud against the complainant. The opposite party cannot be held liable for the illegal acts of the manufacturer. The opposite party is not liable for any compensation. The relief claimed in the complaint is untenable and unreasonable.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents produced marked as Exts. B1 and B2.
4. After closing the evidence opposite party filed IA/No.44/16 seeking impleadment of additional opposite party in the case. Complainant seriously opposed the application for the reason that at the fag-end of the case such a belated petition if allowed will prolong the matter and cause much delay. After hearing the matter in detail, we dismiss the petition by separate order.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased the product from the web site list of the opposite party. According to the opposite party the product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by Nikon. In the version filed by the opposite party they admitted that by way of its communication to the complainant dated 27th December, 2014 they offered a complete full refund of the amount paid by the complainant at the time of purchase of the product. But according to the complainant he was not ready to accept the amount offered by the opposite party, since the price of the product has increased significantly and also the defect of the lens supplied by the opposite party caused much financial mental difficulties to the complainant. It is true that the opposite party is engaged in business of providing service through its internet portal to interested buyers and sellers by acting as a means of communication between them and bringing into existence contract of sale and purchase of movable goods. It could not be permitted to claim that it is providing only an online plat-form to its customers. The business of providing services through internet portal to interest buyers and sellers by acting as a means of communication between them and bringing into existence contracts of sale and purchase of movable goods, comes within the ambit of C.P. Act. In the instant case, the opposite party admitted that they offered to refund the price of the product. But the complainant is not willing to accept the offer. Thereafter he filed the complaint. Since the product is defective during the warranty period, the opposite party can take back the product and can refund the price with interest to the complainant. In this case the opposite party has offered to refund the price of the product while the complainant made complaint itself, hence we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get compensation.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the price of the product that amounts to Rs.19,108/- (Rupees nineteen thousand one hundred and eight only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Syamlal Sasi (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Retail Invoice Bills (3 Nos.)
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Email (2 Nos.)
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Email Notice regarding warranty entitlement
Ext.A4 - Copy of the Online catalogue of Nikon Camera
Ext.A5 - Copy of the Online catalogue of Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55 – 300 mm f/4.5
5.6G ED VR Lens
Ext.A6 - Copy of the Email dated 18.8.2015
Ext.A7 - Copy of the Email dated 6.7.2013
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Flipkart terms of use
Ext.B2 - Copy of the Email
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
