Delhi

North East

CC/66/2017

HARSH KHEWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 66/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Harsh Khewal S/o Sh. Shokinder Kumar R/o H. No. A-4/108 Johari Pur Extension, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Sony Registered Office A-27, 2nd Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044   Shop Clues Network Pvt. Ltd. Building No.112, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

20.02.2017 06.03.2023 10.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased an LED television of Sony Company (Opposite Party No.1) vide model no. KDL40R350C40, 40 inch from Shop clues Network Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) online for a sum of Rs. 28,689/- vide order no. 86497225 dated 26.02.16. The Complainant stated that on 08.10.16 problem occurred in the display of said LED and Complainant lodged complaint on the helpline of Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter on next day employee of Opposite Party No.2 namely Honey visited house of Complainant and repaired the LED in question but after some days same problems occurred again and Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2. On 23.10.16 employee of Opposite Party No.2 visited the house of Complainant and repaired the LED in question. The Complainant stated that on 16.01.17 LED in question again stopped working and Complainant lodged complaint to Opposite Party No.2 but Opposite Party No.2 did not sent any employee to repair the LED in question. The Complainant stated that he lodged complaint to Opposite Party No.2 on various dates but all in vain. It is alleged that the employees of Opposite Party 2 kept on giving false assurances but did not turn up. Since the LED in question is still in damaged condition till date even after a month and the employees of Opposite Party 2 are not repairing the TV which is under warranty. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.  He has prayed to refund the amount of LED in question i.e. Rs. 28,689/- and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. He has further prayed for Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2.  Notice was issued to the OPs on 23.02.2017 and the Opposite Party-2 entered appearance on 27.03.2017 while Opposite Party-1 entered appearance on 07.07.2017.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1 Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is admitted that as per their records the TV in question was purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party-2 but Opposite Party-1 raised preliminary objections that the Opposite Party-2 is neither in the list of authorised dealers of Sony India Pvt. Ltd nor the complainant ever approached any of their service centres raising any sort of issue. It is submitted that the as per the warranty terms, if the product has not been marketed by the Opposite Party-1 and the same has been purchased from the unauthorised dealer/retailer, Sony India shall not be held liable for any wrong in the product. It is further submitted that the complainant has neither sought any relief from the answering Opposite Party nor furnished any material evidence establishing that the product had some manufacturing defect. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party No.2/ Shop Clues Network Pvt. Ltd.

4. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement.  Opposite Party 2 took preliminary objections that they are the intermediary and as the Information Technology Act exempted from any liability for content uploaded onto its website. It is contended that Opposite Party-2 being an intermediary cannot be made liable for delivering the product when the said product was neither manufactured nor sold by them. It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party does not have any role in deficiency of service in the present complaint as they are merely an online intermediary for providing platform to the merchants and sellers. It is also submitted that they addressed the complaint of the complainant to the seller/ merchant Gadgetshub9 who sent their technician to the complainant address to resolve the defect. It is also asserted that to resolve the matter, the Opposite Party-2 on behalf of seller attempted to settle the matter with the complainant on behalf of the merchant, but complainant attempted to enrich himself unjustly, hence could not be settled. In view of above, the present complaint needs to be dismissed.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

5. The Complainant filed separate rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan, AR for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Ms. Gurika Tandon, Executive-Legal of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased LED television of Sony Company (Opposite Party-1) from Shop Clues Network Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party-2), an online platform. It is alleged that the Opposite Party-2 initially attended his complain t and did the repairs on two three occasions but later stopped attending his complaints related to the product and the LED in question is lying in damaged condition and they are not repairing  the same. On the other hand, the Opposite Party-1 the manufacturer took the defense that as per their records, the product in question was purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party-2 who is not their authorized dealer; hence, they are not liable for any deficiency. Further, no relief has been sought against them alleging any manufacturing defect. While the Opposite Party-2 submits that they are just an online intermediary and cannot be held liable for delivering the product when the said product was neither manufactured nor sold by them. It is also contended that they were forwarding the complaint of the complainant to the seller/ merchant Gadgetshub9 who sent their technician to the complainant address to resolve the defect. Opposite Party-2 has also submitted that on behalf of the merchant, they tried to settle the matter but the complainant allegedly did not accept the offer and wanted undue enrichment, hence, no deficiency on their part.
9.  On perusal of the material on record, it is revealed that Opposite Party-1 had categorically denied their liability on the basis that the product in question was purchased from Opposite Party-2 who is not on the list of their authorised dealer and the onus shifted to the Opposite Party-2 to prove that they were the authorised dealer of Opposite Party-1. Since, the Opposite Party-2 had failed to discharge the onus, the contention of Opposite Party-1 is taken as proved for want of rebuttal. The Opposite Party -2 had contended that they are only the online intermediary and only responsible for delivering the product. The complainant’s contention that the employees of Opposite Party-2 repaired the defects on several occasions and Opposite Party-1 contention that in their records, the product is shown to have been purchased from them have not been rebutted by Opposite Party-2 which shows that they were attending the complaints related to the product and later on avoided to attend the further complaints. Not only this, Opposite Party-2 has miserably failed to prove their contention that they were forwarding the complaints to the seller/ merchant and also tried to settle the matter on the seller’s behalf. In that case, the averments of the complainant are to be believed that defects in the LED TV (product in question) were not repaired by Opposite Party -2 in spite of several complaints and the LED in question kept on lying in damaged condition till date the complaint had been filed. It is admitted by Opposite Party-2 that the product was under warranty.
10. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party no.2 which is Shop clues Network Pvt. Ltd. has been deficient in services by not repairing the product in question under warranty.
11. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party-2 i.e. Shop clues Network Pvt. Ltd. to pay to the complainant the cost of the LED TV i.e. 28,689/-with interest @6% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Opposite Party-2 is further directed to pay Rs.15000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. The complainant is directed to deliver the old LED TV (Product in question) to the Opposite Party-2 upon receiving the awarded amount.
12. The Opposite Party-2 is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order and in case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks, Opposite Party-2 will be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. for the delayed period.
13. Order announced on 10.05.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        Member

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President