ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite parties to exchange the defunct mobile set, or pay the costs of the mobile set along with mental agony and litigation charges”.
The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant has purchased a mobile set through online process by Flipcart services from the opposite party No.1 valued at Rs.12,499/-. After 6 to 7 days used the mobile set shows defunct and complainant is a police personnel and contacted with the opposite parties and they directed the complainant to come our office at West Bengal and submit your complaints. The complainant is police personnel and due to Covid-19 pandemic period he is always busy in his duty for the common people. So he has no time to spend to go to West Bengal for the exchange of mobile set.
The opposite party No.1 filed written version stating as under;
The opposite party No.1, Instakart Services Private Limited is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The company is engaged, among others, in providing logistic services to its registered clients all over the country. The opposite party No.1 steps in and provides the logistic services, by picking up the seal packed product from seller and delivering it to the buyer in intact condition as it was picked from the seller. The opposite party No.1 is a carrier to various sellers all over India to deliver their product(s) to the users of the online platform. The sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stock holders. The opposite party No.1 does not indulge itself, directly or indirectly, in the entire transaction of sale and purchase right from listing of product on the website till acceptance of ‘offer for sale’ by the seller. The complainant has wrongly arrayed opposite party No.1 in the present complaint and hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party.
The opposite party No.2 filed written version stating as under;
The opposite party No.2 is not engaged in sale of any goods manufactured or produced by its own. The opposite party No.2 is engaged in sale of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturer. Thus, opposite party No.2 have a separate and distinct identity from that of the manufacturer of the product. The opposite party No.2 is not the manufacturer but an online seller and the products sold by opposite party No.2 carries warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defects subject to the terms and conditions determined by the manufacturers only. Irrespective of the warranty provided by the manufacturer, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party No.2 provide 7 days return/replacement policy to its customer in case there is any issue with the product which cannot be rectified. However, in the instant matter the complainant had used the product in issue for more than six months. Moreover the complainant never contacted the opposite party No.2 for any grievance.
The grievance of the complainant is that he contacted with online process to opposite party No.1 and the mobile supplied through opposite party No.1 was found defective. The complainant has not impleaded the mobile company as opposite party. The opposite parties are corrior companies whose only responsibility like postman to deliver the article, which they have performed and there is no deficiency of service on their part on delivery the good. Complainant is absent on call, complainant has not made the manufacture of mobile set as party for which we are handicapped and not passed any order to give relief to the complainant.
We therefore dismiss the case with liberty to the complainant to file better petition if so advised. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of. No cost.
