Delhi

East Delhi

CC/451/2013

CHITRA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STAR CJ. NETWORK - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no           451 /2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  04/06/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 27/02/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          28/02/2018   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mrs. Chitra Sharma, adult 

R/o-C-27, Pandav Nagar, Delhi 110091….……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1- M/s Star CJ Network India Pvt Ltd.

6^th Floor, Star CJ Plaza

Dr DB Gupta Marg, Grant Road East,

Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400007  

 

2-M/s MNM Trading Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Star CJ Network Franchise

Vill. - Samka Jamalpur, Pataudi Road,

Tah.- Patuadi, Gurgaon Haryana- 123503

 

3- M/s Symphony Ltd.

“Samya” Bekari Circle,  

Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Guj. 380014..………………...……………………Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advo.………………………Mr Mukesh Chand Sharma

Opponent 1 & 2.…………………………….Nemo

Opponent’3 Advo…………………………..Manoj Kumar & Asso. & Mr Abhay Kumar- AR

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case   

Complainant booked one Symphony Air Cooler model DiET22 on 03/05/2012 through OP1 / Star CJ Network for a sum of Rs 6490/-and same was delivered through OP2/ MNM Trading Solutions on 04/05/2013 vide retail invoice no. 201205040314 (Ex CW1/1) having one year manufacturing warranty. It had been stated that the said air cooler suddenly stopped working from 25/05/2012, so complaint was lodged to OP1/manufacturer and OP3 on 30/05/2012 vide complaint no HTC-30E12002. Complainant received SMS from OP1 for sending their service engineer within 24 hours, but none came to inspect or rectify the defect so again complaint was lodged on 11/07/2012 to OP1 and 3.

It had been stated that technician visited and inspected the cooler and told to replace some part as part had gone damaged. Complainant purchased a new cooler for her use for a sum of Rs 4100/-and thereafter sent a legal notice to OPs on 24/08/2012 (Ex CW1/2). OP3/Symphony replied legal notice regretting for any manufacturing defects in their products (Ex CW1/3), but promised to get defect resolved, if any. When no one attended to rectify the defects, so complainant also filed her compliant on National Helpline vide complaint no. 450699 on 02/04/2013. When no reply was received from OPs or National Helpline, filed this complaint claimed refund of the cost of the cooler Rs 6490/-with appropriate interest and Rs 1.5 lacs for compensation for harassment and mental agony with Rs 11000/-as litigation charges. 

 

After notices, OP1/ M/s Star CJ Network filed written statement and denied all the allegations as wrong and incorrect in complaint. OP1 labeled deficiency in services on OP2 /MNM Trading Solutions and stated that OP2 was a “third party retail sellers” (Seller) and all products including schemes and offers on specific products to be offered by their end and orders to be fulfilled by the Sellers/OP2.  It was stated that schemes, gifts etc offered by the Seller were put on OP1 online platform, but OP1 was no way responsible for fulfillment of orders that may be placed by the buyers.

Third party sellers were the sole responsible for any orders placed by the buyers on OP1 portal and if any product had defects at the time of delivery should had to be intimated to the Seller within two days for replacement or refund in case of a refund policy was present. OP1 being a online portal, booking done for various products from number of manufacturing units under strict quality control and all the products whose order were placed on their website, were directed to third party sellers. It was also submitted that all sold items carry standard one year warranty and any problem/defect occur in sold products, after sale warranty and services had to be provided by the “Seller”/ here OP2.

So, OP1 being an online portal, does not sell or provide any warranty of any products. Though every advertised product carry standard warranty of one year from the date of delivery of the product and such warranty would be provided by the manufacturer of the product. Seller as third party provide after sale services whenever complaints would arise. So, OP1 regretted to provide service as they have no role in providing services in after sale goods. 

 

OP2 and OP3 did not put their appearance or filed written statement despite of serving notices, so complainant was asked to file rejoinder to OP1 written statement, but complainant also not submitted rejoinder. She filed evidence on affidavit and reaffirmed herself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true and all correct facts had been stated in her complaint. She had also submitted that due to deficient services of OPs, a new cooler was purchased for a sum of Rs 4100/-(Ex CW1/4).

 

OP1 also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh Abhay Sharma, Authorised Representative of OP1 and stated on oath that he was authorized to depose evidences on affidavit. It was stated that OP1 had engaged OP2 as a seller of different products online and all products orders received online were transferred to third party sellers who send ordered products to retail end customers and all schemes and offers were the discretion of third party seller for which OP1 had no role. Here in this case the product “Symphony” Air cooler was sold by OP2/MNM Trading Solutions Pvt Ltd. whose order was received online (www.starcj.com) from the complainant. The said cooler was neither sold directly to the complainant nor service was provided by OP1. All the services had to be provided by OP2, hence there was no contract of privity between complainant and OP1.

It was also stated that if no complaint was received within 2 days from receiving the product pertaining to manufacturing defect, deemed that the product was received in good working condition and if any defect or problem occurred, OP2 was responsible to rectify the defects thereafter under after sale service agreement with OP1. 

Here complaints of complainant were received under ‘After Sale Service’ terms, so OP1 was nowhere involved and thus liability to provide service or refund remains with the domain of OP2 and OP3. It was also stated that complainant received the goods/cooler on 04/05/2012 and her complaint was received 25/05/2012 meaning thereby that the said product had no manufacturing defects and complaint pertains to after sale service to be done by the OP2 only.

 

Arguments were heard from both the party’s counsels at length and after file was perused, order was reserved.   

During the course of arguments, OP1 had relied their defence also on citations from NCDRC as Maruti Udhyog Ltd vs Avadh Kishore Singh & other, RP 677/2004 decided on 04/05/2009, where it was held that dealer was responsible for providing after sale services through their authorised workshop as their agent and not the manufacturer except had any manufacturing defect. Here in this case, dealer was OP2/MNM Trading services who had to provide after sale services, but violated the agreement.  

 

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP1 that the said order for one air cooler was received online and was transferred to OP2 for delivery of the said product and the same was delivered too. OP2 and OP3 neither submitted written statement nor evidence despite of serving notices. But complainant had annexed reply of her legal notice to OP3/ Symphony which was on record who has admitted that the said product was manufactured by them. Under manufacturing defect, they were liable to replace the parts or product otherwise under after sale services had to be provided by their authorised seller/OP2. The complaints were received by OP2 pertaining to cooler and product was under standard warranty tenure, so OP2 has violated the terms of ‘After Sale Services’ agreement between OP1.

Also complainant had not submitted her rejoinder to the written statement of OP1 who had denied all the allegations in complaint as wrong and incorrect. Only evidences were submitted by the complainant. Thus there is no liability on OP1 pertaining to deficiency in services or supplying defective goods.

There is no liability on OP3, but complaint has merit on the points mentioned below as—

Point 1- Defects occurred in warranty tenure and manufacturer/Symphony/OP3 had replied to Legal notice under point 13 & 14 that OP2 would rectify defects and if product had manufacturing defect, part/s would be replaced after proper inspection by their service engineer, but did not repair the cooler nor filed written statements or evidences till arguments. 

Point 2-OP2 was deficient in providing services to complainant under After Sale Service agreement with OP1.

Point 3- Complainant suffered harassment due to deficient services of OP2.

So we are of the opinion that complainant has succeeded in her case by proving deficiency of OP2. So we pass the order as under—

1. OP2 shall rectify the defect/s within 30 days from receiving this order and shall hand over in good working condition to the complainant with warranty of six months through OP1 from the date of handing cooler.
2. If order is not complied in stipulated duration, OP2 shall refund the cost of cooler with 6% interest from the date of order till realized.
3. We also award compensation Rs 2000/-for harassment with Rs 1000/-as litigation charges
4. There shall be no order to cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Regulation 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Regulation 20 of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                              Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                            

                                                

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh President