Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 515.
Instituted on : 04.09.2017.
Decided on : 21.05.2019.
Ashish age 21 years s/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o Singhpura District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Shri Hari Computer Solutions, 866-22, Near Bajrang Bhawan, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
- Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034(Karnataka) India.
- LeEco/Letv, Ground Floor, Beech E-1, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Bangalore, India-560045.
- WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park, B-Block, 9th Floor, Survey No.56/18, Garvebhavipaiya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1, 3 & 4 already exparte.
Sh. V.P.Gahlot, Advocate for OP No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile set LeEco/Letv from the opposite party no.2 online vide invoice no.ghz20150700009293 dated 12.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.11998/- . That the alleged mobile become dead on 11.06.2017. That the complainant deposited his mobile set with the opposite party No.1 on 12.06.2017 and thereafter on every visit, opposite party No.1 given a date and did not repair the mobile set for more than 2 months. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.11998/- towards cost of mobile alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has purchased the product from one of the sellers listed on the flipkart Platform, which is also evident from the copy of seller tax invoice which clearly states that the order is “ordered THROUGH Flipkart”. That there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 and hence opposite party No.2 does not render any liability arising out of such contract. It is submitted that the grievance of the complainant should have been only against the manufacturer of the product i.e. opposite party No.3 or the authorized service Centre appointed by the Manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1 for not providing after sale services to its customers. That there is no cause of action against the answering opposite party and as such dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Notice sent to OP No.1 received back duly served and notice sent to OP No.3 & 4 through registered post not received back in any form. As such OPs No. 1, 3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.10.2017 and 28.11.2018 of this Forum respectively.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.03.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 2 tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A and closed his evidence on dated 12.04.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 12.07.2016 vide invoice Ex.C2. As per job sheet Ex.C1 dated 12.07.2017 the mobile in question was in dead condition and there was problem of auto on off. As per job sheet Ex.C1, the mobile in question is within warranty period but the same has not been repaired/replaced by the opposite party No.1. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has filed reply submitting therein that opposite party No.2 is only a platform for the transaction took place between the complainant(buyer) and seller and it has no role in providing warranty of the product. On the other hand, OP No.1, 3 & 4 have not appeared before this Forum for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding defective mobile set stands proved. Hence complainant is entitled for refund the price of mobile phone after deduction of 40% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 11 months.
7. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.3 & 4 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% discount from the total cost i.e. to pay Rs.7198/-(Rupees seven thousand one hundred ninety eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.09.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OPs at the time of payment by the OP No.3 & 4, if the same is in his possession.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
