::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::

                                                            C.C. No.46/2019.

                                                                                                                            Date of filing: 07.08.2019.

                                                              Date of disposal: 30.10.2023.

P R E S E N Ts:-    

                                (1) Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi,                                                                                                               B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl.),

                                                                                                  President.,  

                                (2) Kum. Kavita,

                                                               M.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),  

                                                                         Member.                       

COMPLAINANT/S                    1.    Kum.Vijaylaxmi D/o Kashinath Pyage,                                                                      

                                                             Age: Major, Occ: Private job,

                                                            R/o Plot No.86 Naubad Road,

                                                             Anand Nagar, Bidar.

                                                    (By Sri.Shridhar Wadde, Advocate.)                      

                                                                                                   V/s

OPPONENT/S                    1. The Flip Kart Courier Services,

                                                     Flipkart Service, Adharsh Colony,

                                                     Near Mattemanikeshwari College

                                                     Patil Complex, Bidar-585401.

                                                2.         The Flip Kart Internet Pvt.Ltd.,

                                                      Vaishnavi Unit No.6/3, 7^th Main 80 feet road,
                                                      3^rd block, Kormangala, Bangalore-560034.

                                                3.         Prashant Battery Corporation,

                                                      75, 76, Gokhale Market, Karnat Palace,

                                                      New Delhi-110044.

                                                4.         Rudra Enterprises, C-122 Krishna Kunj
                                                       Society, Kidasan, Gandhi Nagar,

                                                       Adlaj-382421.

                                                         (OP No.1 by Smt.Soniya J. Patil,

                                                     OP No.2 Nashi Chandrakant Advocate and
                                                     OP No.3&4 Exparte.)

                                                                                       ::  J U D G M E N T  ::

By. Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi, President.

The complaint has been filed by complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opponents for the deficiency of service by not supplying the proper mobiles and sought for reimbursement of mobile amount and for compensation from Ops.  Hence, passed the following judgement.

Brief facts of the complaint.

The brief facts of the complaint in as follows: -

1.         The complainant purchased mobile of Moto MG-4 (Block 16 GB) order placed on 20.10.2018, and reached to the complainant on 22.10.2018 through OP No.1 and 2 for which including shipping charges along with price of the mobile in total for Rs.9,000/-.  Another Mobile of Moto G-4 (White) which was ordered on 19.10.2018, and reached to the complainant on 20.10.2018 through OP NO.1 and 2 for which shipping charges are also paid with price of the mobile in Total Rs.7,990/-, with warranty card.  From the day one it is found that, Mobile supplied and delivered by Ops were defective including notifications etc.  The said Mobiles found non-functioning, after noticing the defects of the mobile by the complainant, she informed the OP company but they have not responded, then issue legal notice to the Ops for rectifying the problems occurred in the Mobiles.  For that, also they did not respond hence, this complaint for damages and compensation. 

2.         Subsequent to service of summons on Ops, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and OP No.2 filed his W.V. but, OP No.1 has not filed his W.V. before this commission.  The OP No.3 and 4 were placed ex-parte. 

Written Version of OP.No.2.

3.         The OP No.2 contended that, the complainant purchased the products from OP No.3 and 4 and they are liable to indemnify the complainant and not the OP No.2.  The amount was collected by OP No.3 and 4 and not by OP No.2 therefore the OP No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  The allegations were against OP No.3 and 4 and not against OP No.2 and there is no cause of action against OP No.2.   The defects which has been alleged in the complaint has to  be rectified by manufacturer of the said products.  The P No.2 is a Private Limited Company and is an intermediary engaged in the business of providing facility over internet through its website and mobile application and provide market place platform, it gives only service to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions for e-commerce for various goods and this OP No.2 is not at all liable for any deficiency of service attributed by the complainant and hence prayed to dismiss the compliant  against him.   

Evidence of complainant.

4.         The complainant is examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked   documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 which are as follows,

1. Ex.P.1-Copy of online tax invoice pertaining to Moto G-4 Black Mobile.
2. Ex.P.2-Copy of legal notice issued by Advocate of the complainant to the Ops dt:26.06.2019.
3. Ex.P.3-Copies of courier service receipts.
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of online tax invoice pertaining to Moto White Mobile. 

5.         In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to OP No.2 to file his evidence affidavit but he did not chosen to file any evidence affidavit hence, his evidence taken as nil on 25.09.2023.

Points/Issues.

6.         On perusal of pleadings, documents of the parties, this commission raised the points for discussion as below;

1. Whether the complainant proves that, she is consumer to the Ops  and further proves the deficiency of service by the Ops?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as sought in her complaint?

3. What orders? 

7.         Our answers to the points raised above are as follows: -

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative,
3. As per the final order.

Points No 1 and 2.

8.         In order to decide the complaint issues, this commission discussed points/issues No.1 and 2 together for discussion as each points are inter related to each other as follows.

9.         In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant lead her evidence as P.W.1 by way of reiterating the complaint facts and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.04 documents on her behalf.  The complainant case is that, she has purchased Mobile Moto MG-4 (Block 16 GB) from OP No.3, for Rs.9,000/- by online service through OP No.1 and 2 courier service on 22.10.2018 including shipping charges.

10.       The complainant also purchased mobile Moto G-4 (white) from OP No.4 for Rs.7,990/- by online service through OP NO.1 and 2 courier service on 20.10.2018 including shipping charges. 

11.       After purchase of both mobile sets from OP No.3 and 4 by the complainant, it found that, the non-functioning of both mobile sets and found defective, not functioning properly.  The complainant informed to the OP NO.3 and 4 but they did not provide any service to repair the above two mobile sets of the complainant.  Lastly the complainant got issued legal notice  as per Ex.P.2 to the OP No.3 and 4 through courier service as per Ex.P.3.   

12.       The complainant has produced Ex.P.1 the Tax Invoice online receipt which has been issued by OP No.3 for having purchase of Moto G-4 (Block 16 GB) for Rs.9,000/- including shipping charges from the complainant.  The complainant has produced another document Ex.P.4 Tax Invoice online receipt which has been issued by OP No.4 for having purchase of Moto
G-4 (white) for Rs.7,990/- including shipping charges from the complainant. 

13.       The complainant examined herself as P.W.1 by filing her evidence affidavit and sworn in the affidavit that, the Mobile Sets supplied by OP No.3 and 4 were not functioning properly from the day one of purchase and due to non-functioning of both sets, she immediately contacted OP No.3 and 4 to set right  the problem which is occurred in two mobile sets but the OP No.3 and 4 did not respond for the call of the complainant and lastly she has issued legal notice to the Ops but they did not comply the same. 

14.       The OP No.2 filed his W.V. stating that, he is only intermediary service provider through internets website of Flip kart company and mobile app Flip Kart platform and he provide market place platform/technology and other mechanism/service to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce from various good in between buyers and sellers.  Whatever the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint are pertaining to the defects in manufacture/ service of mobile sets pertaining to OP No.3 and 4.  Hence, he prayed to dismiss the compliant as against him.  Though, the OP No.2 has not filed any evidence affidavit or any documents before this commission but, the pleading of the complainant regarding deficiency of service attributed to only OP No.3 and 4, but not against OP No.1 and 2.  Hence, the case against OP No.1 and 2 is not maintainable and liable to dismiss. 

15.       On going through Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4 the purchase invoice Tax receipt issued by OP No.3 and 4 are the relevant document to show that, the complainant has purchased two mobile sets from OP No.3 and 4 respectively and hence, the complainant is consumer to OP NO.3 and 4 and OP No.3 and 4 are the service providers to the complainant.  The complainant stated that, in spite of issuance of legal notice as per Ex.P.2 to the OP No.3 and 4, they did not respondfor the notice and even they did not comply the deficiency of service which were shown in mobile sets of the complainant hence, this commission is of the opinion that, the complainant has proved the deficiency of service by OP No.3 and 4 and answered point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative in favour of complainant and proceed to pass the fallowing. 

::ORDER::

        The complaint u/s 35 of CP Act 2019, filed by the complainant against OP No.3 and 4 is hereby allowed in part along with costs and compensation.

            The OP No.3 is hereby directed to reimburse the price of Rs.9,000/- pertaining to Moto G-4 (block 16-GB) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of Ex.P.1 dt: 20.10.2018. 

            The OP No.4 is hereby directed to reimburse the price of Rs.7,990/- pertaining to Moto G-4 (white) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of Ex.P.4 dt: 19.10.2018 till realisation along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- each by OP No.3 and 4 for sufferance and inconvenience caused to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- each by OP No.3 and 4 as litigation charges  within 45 days from the date of this order. 

The complaint against OP No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed and no order as to cost. 

            Intimate the parties accordingly.                        

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Commission on this 30^th day of October-2023).

Documents produced by the complainant.

1. Ex.P.1-Copy of online tax invoice pertaining to Moto G-4 Black Mobile.
2. Ex.P.2-Copy of legal notice issued by Advocate of the complainant to the Ops dt:26.06.2019.
3. Ex.P.3-Copies of courier service receipts.
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of online tax invoice pertaining to Moto White Mobile. 

Document produced by the Opponent.

-Nil-

Witness examined.

Complainant.:-

P.W.1- Kum.Vijaylaxmi D/o Kashinath Pyage,           (complainant).                   

Opponent:- 

-Nil-