Orissa

Rayagada

CC/26/2017

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Advocate by Profession

09 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 26 / 2017.                                         Date.      21.7. 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Sri GadadharaSahu, B.Sc.                                 President I/C.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,LL.B.                              Member

 

Sri   Rajendra Kumar Senapati, S/O: Sri Dharma Senapati, New Colony,  Po/Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

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

 

2. The Service Manager, Unit No.203,2^nd. Floor, Tower-A, Peninsusla Business Park, Lower parel, Mumbai-400013.

                                                              .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self

For the O.P  No.1:- Sri Ramakanta Jena and associates.

For the  No. 2:- Set exparte.

                                                J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund the sale price of Huawei Honor  5x  16 GB mobile handset.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the complainant had purchased  Huawei Honor  5x  16 GB mobile handset  from the  O.P.No.1  vide  retail  invoice  No. #CHN_PUZHAL_0120160200379517  Dt. 28.2.2016  amounting to Rs. 12,999/-. The mobile set could not function properly  i.e. the battery drains too fast, the  mobile hangs  itself, the display  blinks itself and had became defunct on Dt. 12.11.2016.  Immediately the complainant approached the service centre at Vizag  in  turn  the service person has replied that the said mobile set has a mother board problem.   On that the complainant has  requested the service centre to replace the mobile handset as the mobile  has found  defect within the warranty period, but  the same has not yet been complied  by the  service centre.  Hence this case.  The complainant prays this forum direct the O.Ps to refund the sale price of the above set a sum of Rs.12,999/- and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

          On being noticed the O.P. No.1  filed  Written version and submitted 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 end    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 prayed to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P. No.1 for the best  interest   of justice.

          The  O.P.  No. 2   received  notice from the  forum as  revealed  from the  postal receipt, but neither appeared nor choose to file written version.  The statutory period for filing of written version  was over.  Hence the O.P. No. 2  was set exparte.  So the case was posted for  hearing  to close the case within the time frame as per  the C.P. Act.

In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.P. No.2  it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.P. No.2    deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  warranty  card  which  intended      with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.P  No.2  has failed to  give such service  as per warranty card  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.P No.2  is   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

When   the  O.P No.2 had  sold  Huawei Honor  5x  16 GB mobile handset  vide  retail  invoice  No. #CHN_PUZHAL_0120160200379517  Dt. 28.2.2016  amounting to Rs. 12,999/-  and  issued  warranty card   to give service  free of cost within one year from the date of purchase  for a valuable   consideration and even  after   receipt  of the said consideration in advance,  non performance  of   the  same in spite  of   approaches from time to time    by the complainant amounts to  breach of  the  said   warranty    and further  giving false  promise  with  an intention of the  extract  money and  subsequently failed  in  giving  the  service  as  promised.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to receive  the full   amount which was paid by the complainant to the O.P. No. 2   bearing retail  invoice  No. #CHN_PUZHAL_0120160200379517  with  up-to-date  bank  interest from the O.Ps  who have broken  the  contract, Compensation  for any  loss or damage caused to him  thereby,  which  naturally arose in the usual course  of things  for  such breach  or which the party  knew when they have  made the  contract ought to considered.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

We observed   the  complainant feel the O.P No.2  service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.P No.2  with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps the complainant   sustained mental agony, damages  etc hence the O.P. No.2 is liable to pay compensation  under circumstances of the case.

In the  present case  the O.P. No.1 and  O.P. No.2 are jointly and several liable.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.P 2  and  contest against  the O.P. No.1.

            The O.P. No.2  is ordered to take back their product and  refund price of the Huawei Honor  5x  16 GB mobile handset  a sum of Rs. 12,999/- to the complainant. The O.P. No.2  is further ordered to pay  Rs.1,000/- towards  litigation  expenses  to the complainant.          

The O.P. No.1 is ordered to refer the matter  to the O.P.No.2 for early compliance of the order..

                        The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days from the date of  receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty  to take further  proceedings U/S- 25 & 27  of the C.P. Act. Service the copies of the order to the parties.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           21^st.   day of   July   , 2017.

 

                                               

 

MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.