Orissa

Rayagada

CC/102/2019

SK ND shafi R.K. Bath & sanitary Ware - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, amazon India Brigate Gate Way - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Nov 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

C.C. Case  No.     102  / 2019                                     Date. 26   .  11   . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Sri  Gadadhara   Sahu,                                                                    President-In-Charge.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

   SK. MD Shafi, R.K.Bath & Snitary Ware, Opposite IOB Bank,  po: J.K.Pur, 765 017,   Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).Cell No.9032999239..                                                                                                                         …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Amazon India, Brigate Gateway, 8^th. Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,  Malleshwaram(W),Bangalore- 560055, Karnataka State, E-mail ID-Amaznindpr@amazon.com.     

2.The Manager, One plus exclusive  Service Cenre, Hira Building, Municipal No. New 213 (Old #5), Ward  No.76, Richmond Town,  Brigade Road, Bangalore- 560001.

3.The Manager, Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 01, Udog  Vihar, GR., Noida, Utter Pradesh State, 201 306.                                                                                                    …Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P. No.1:- Sri  S. Ramesh  Kumar, Advocate, Rayagada (Odisha).

For the O.Ps 2  &  3     :- Set  exparte.

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of price of the mobile set a sum of Rs.42,079/- towards found defective during warranty period     for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts  of the case are summarized here under.

That  the complainant  had  placed order  for  purchase of Handset  One plus A 6010  vide IMEI No.869671043730512 and IMEI No. 869671043730504  through Amazon India i.e. O.P. No.1 in shape of  on line    vide  order No.  407 0655020 2281937  and Order  DT.  November, 2018 of the  O.P. No.1   and paid  Rs.42,079/- (Rupees Forty two   thousand  seventy nine)only to the  O.Ps on Dt. 1.12.2018...  In turn  the O.P. No. 1  had sent  above mobile  through  courier service    which  was received  by the complainant   on Dt. 1.12.2018.  .  After  using some months the above set found defective i.e. Touch screen problem, hanging, on and off automatically,  during using the mobile was hot    so the complainant  had  intimated to the  O.Ps. But the O.Ps  have  till date not rectified the same  . Hence this case filed by the complainant  for redressal of his  grievance before the forum as  he  has  no alternative  then to approach   this forum.       Further there is no such service centre has situated in Rayagada  town Odisha state.    The complainant  prays the forum   direct the  O.Ps   to   refund  the  purchase price of  the mobile set and such other relief  as the  forum deems   fit and proper  for the best  interest   of justice. 

On being noticed the O.P. No. 1    filed written version through their learned counsel and contended   that  the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the O.P  No..1.  The O.P. No. 1    is  protected  by the provisions of Section-79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. The  O.P. No 1 neither offers  nor provides any assurance and/or offers  warranty   to the     buyers  of the  product.. The  O.P.   No. 1 is  neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 1 is   only  limited  to providing on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website. The O.P  No. 1  taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No. 1..The O.P. No. 1   in their written version relied  citations of the apex court. The O.P No.1 `  prays to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P.  No. 1   for the best  interest   of justice.

               

On being noticed the O.P 2 & 3  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps .  Observing lapses of around one year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps 2 & 3  were set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard from the complainant.  Perused the record filed by the complainant.

The  complainant advanced arguments  vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

        FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant  had purchased  Handset  One plus A 6010  vide IMEI No.869671043730512 and IMEI No. 869671043730504  through Amazon India i.e. O.P. No.1 in shape of  on line    vide  order No.  407 0655020 2281937  and Order  DT.  November, 2018 of the  O.P. No.1   and paid  Rs.42,079/- (Rupees Forty two   thousand  seventy nine)only to the  O.Ps on Dt. 1.12.2018  with  one year warranty (copies of  Tax invoice are in the file which are marked as Annexure-1 ). But unfortunately after delivery  with in few months the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the O.Ps  for necessary repair in turn the OP paid deaf ear.   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use  of the above product.

.           From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the O.Ps for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the O.P     knows from time to time.

 

On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose witn in warranty period  of purchase. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 08 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP. The forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the Ops.

                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on exparte against the O.Ps.

The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer  One plus ) is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  to refund  price  of  the above mobile set  a sum of Rs.42,079/- .Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

            The O.P. No. 1  & 3   are  ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2   for early compliance of the above order.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   

Pronounced in the open forum on    26^th. .     day of     November , 2020.

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT