DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2023

  Present :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

     :  Smt Vidya A, Member

              :  Sri Krishnankutty N K, Member

Date of filing: 18/08/2023.

     CC/213/2023

Radhamani - Complainant

W/o Unnikrishnan

Chankoth, Kulakkattukurussi,

Sreekrishanpuram II

Palakkad - 678 633

(For & behalf of minor son Vinod C)

(Party in person) .

  V/s

•     The Manager,  - Opposite Parties

Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd,

Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor,

7^th Main, 80 feet Road, Third Block,

Koramangala Industrial Layout,

Bangalore - 560 034.

•      The manager,

   ZNET Telecom,

   First Floor, Apsara Complex,

   Mettupalayam Street, Palakkad - 678 001.

(Party in person).

 O R D E R   

By Sri Krishnankutty N K, Memebr

•    Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

The complaint in brief is about the defect of a POCCO FI Smart phone purchased by the complainant’s son through the online platform of first opposite party. The purchase was made on  6/5/2023 paying Rs 13,039/- and the invoice was issued by M/s Vardhman Telemarketing, Haryana - 124103.

The allegation is that the phone was not getting switched on, since its delivery on 21/5/23. Since then the complainant took the following steps to get a replacement or to get the defect rectified.

• On 22/5/2023 the first opposite party was contacted but their response  was not proper. When the 2^nd opposite party was approached they   informed that the phone is a second hand one and agreed to replace the same if original invoice is produced.
• As the first opposite party  had not given any bill, the complainant’s son contacted them and they agreed to give the invoice provided the 2^nd  opposite party certify that it is a second hand one.
• Though the complainant's son obtained the invoice from the 1^st opposite party on 26/05/23 and approached the second opposite party, the phone was neither replaced nor repaired by them.

Hence this complaint is filed seeking refund of the cost of Rs 13,039/- along with interest @ 12% apart from a compensation of Rs 30,000/- for Unfair Trade Practice and cost.

• Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notices to 1^st opposite party got returned with endorsement “left”. Hence the complainant was directed to produce their e-mail address. The second opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. Their contention is that they are only the service centre of the manufacturer, M/s POCCO India Ltd and hence the manufacturer should have been made a party to the complaint. Further, replacement can be made only if the purchaser approach them with in 7 days from the invoice date, as per their replacement policy.
• The complainant has been continuously  absent for the proceedings since beginning. Hence the case was taken for orders based on merits.
• Though the complaint pleadings appear to be genuine, the complainant has not taken any steps to prove the pleadings. Even the email id of the 1^st opposite party has not been provided inspite of the direction of this Commission.
• Since the complainant has failed to appear before this Commission, we are under the reasonable presumption that the complainant is not interested in proceeding further with the case.

 Hence the complaint is dismissed

Pronounced in open court on this the 8^th November  2023.

Sd/-

  Vinay Menon V

                                        President

         Sd/-

        Krishnankutty N K

      Member.