BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Consumer Complaint No. 152 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 17.10.2017.
Date of Decision: 14.12.2018.
Sumit Kumar son of Shri Haripal, resident of village Phulpura, Tehsil and District Bhiwani (Haryana).
…..Complainant.
Versus
1. Paytm Headquarter B-121, Sector-5, Noida-201301 (U.P.).
2. Sony Mobile, Head Officer, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (India).
3. Venus Electronics (238107), Navarangpur, Ahmedabad (Gujrat) Pin-380009, Ahmedabad, Gujrat380009, PAN: ACHPT7031D, GSTIN: 24ACHPT7031K1ZD.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Miss Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Sumit Sheoran, Advocate for the OP No.1.
Shri Harinder Rana, Advocate for the OP No.2.
OP No. 3 already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he has purchased a Sony Mobile Set from OP No.2 through Paytm OP No.1 for a total consideration of Rs. 20,089/- on 24.7.2017. It is further alleged that after 30 days the touch of the mobile set stop working. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Sony care centre for the repair of the mobile set, but they refused to repair the mobile set saying that they have no authority to repair the mobile set purchased through Paytm. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Paytm, but they did not reply clearly. It is further alleged that the complainant visits several time with the care centre of Sony mobile and also talks with the Paytm, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice OP No.1 filed its reply denying the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged by the OP No.1 that they only provides online market place platform which facilitates the sellers to list their goods and buyer’s to access goods from the multiple sellers at www.paytmmall.com. It is further alleged that OP No.1 does not sell any of the goods on the said website directly. It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased one Sony Xperia XA1 32GB (pink) mobile from OP No.3, which was delivered by OP No.3 on 27.7.2017 to the complainant through courier Blue Dart at the given address. It is further
Alleged that the liability and obligation solely rests upon OP No.3, who sold the product in question and upon OP No.2 manufacturer. It is further alleged that the OP No.1 neither the seller nor the manufacturer. It is further alleged that OP No.2 and 3 shall be responsible and liable for any complaints and queries of buyers with respect to product ordered, quality or quantity of the products delivered. It is further alleged that the OP No.1 is an intermediary as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and exempted from liability for third part information, data and communication link made available or hosted by it. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. On notice OP No.2 appeared and filed its separate contested reply denying the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that the complaint is not maintainable, because there no proof which says that handset was ever brought to any of the authorized service center of the OP No.2 or it has any inherent defect. It is further alleged that OP No.2 made efforts to trace out the service detail of the handset in question, but no such details were available relating to mobile set in question. It is further alleged that anyone who wants to avail in-warranty services, he must furnish the original bill, but in the present case the complainant never visited any of the service center of the OP No.2. It is further alleged that in-warranty services are only applicable where no physical damage or there is a fault on the part of the company, but in this case the status of the handset is unknown. Hence, there is no deficiency in server on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. On notice to OP No. 3, no one appeared on its behalf and OP No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.1.2018.
4. The complainant in support of his case placed on record documents annexure C1 to Annexure C4.
5. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 2 in support of their version has placed on record Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant and ld. counsel for the OP No. 3 at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. After hearing the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as he has miserably failed to bring any cogent and convincing evidence to prove deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Now, the question arises whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed. The answer has already been given above that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs. From the perusal of the copy of mail dated 25.9.2017 sent by OPs to the complainant available on the file as Annexure C4, it depicts that the OPs have clearly asked the complainant to contact Sony Xperia support at the toll free number 1800-103-7799 or to know the sony online authorized dealer visit Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open court.
14.12.2018.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
