Orissa

Rayagada

CC/30/2020

Smt. Nasema Banu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.    30            / 2020.                        Date     25.11.  2021

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Naseema    Banu,Subhanallha  Manzil,  Raniguda Farm, Near Water tank,Po/Dist:Rayagada,State:Odisha. Cell No. 8249335994, 6371216286.                                                                                                                      …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Flipkart  Internet  Pvt. Ltd., Ground floor, 7^th. Main, 80 feet  road,3^rd. blockKoramangala, Benguluru, 560034 (India).

 

2. The Manager,  AK International, B-1916,  Shastri  Nagar, New Delhi,-110052.

                                                                                      .…..Opp.Parties.

For the  Complainant:-Self.

For  O.Ps.:-  Set Exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

            The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non removing the defects during warranty period  towards   1 No. of  Hot line    Wall Fan  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts  are summarised here  under.

That  the complainant  had  placed order  for  purchase of  1 No. of  Hot line    Wall Fans  through Flipkart i.e. O.P. No.1 in shape of  on line    vide Invoice  No.FA BK4J1900005485, DT.  14.09.2018, of the  O.P. No. 2   and paid  Rs.1,711/-,  In turn  the O.P. No. 1 &2 had sent  above Fans  through  courier service    which  was received  by the complainant   during the month of  September, 2018.  After  using some months the above set found defective i.e. total non function and unuseduring the warranty period   so the complainant  had  intimated to the  O.Ps  for rectification of the same but the O.Ps are paid deaf ear. Hence this case filed by the complainant  for redressal of her  grievance before the forum as  she  has  no alternative  then to approach   this forum.                                                                        

On being noticed the O.Ps  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  06 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  from 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 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.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.Ps

          Heard  arguments from the   complainant..   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by   both  the   parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant had purchased a 1 No. of  Hot line    Wall Fans  through Flipkart i.e. O.P. No.1 in shape of  on line    vide Invoice  No.FA BK4J1900005485, DT.  14.09.2018, of the  O.P. No. 2   and paid  Rs.1,711- to the  O.P No.2   with  one year warranty (copies of  Tax invoice are in the file which are marked as Annexure-1 to 3). 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 she spent but for no use.

.           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 No. No.2   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 after few month  of purchase. As the O.P No.2  deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above one year, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complaint as adduced by the O.P. No.2.  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 OP No.2  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 or a new same set instead of the defective one 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 O.PNo.2  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 O.Ps.

                                                            O R D E R

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

            The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer)  is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of  1(One) No. of Hot line  Wall Fans in total sum of Rs.1,711/- besides  to pay an amount of Rs.1.000/- (Rupees onethousand) towards litigation cost to the complainant.

The O.P  No.1(Flipkart)  is  directed to refer the matter to the O.P No. 2   for early compliance  of the above order  and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No. 2   to provide satisfying service  for which she is entitled.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order. Serve the order  to the  parties free of cost.

Pronounced in the open forum on   25^th.day   of  November,   2021.

 

                                                                  MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT