Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 361.
Instituted on : 13.08.2015.
Decided on : 09.03.2016.
Digvijay Jakhar R/o A-92, Preet Vihar, Kanheli Road, Rohtak(Haryana)-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, W.S.Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahlawat Edifice, Killa No.0392/1/1/11, Sheela Bye Pass, Tilak Nagar, Near UCO Bank, Delhi Road-Rohtak-124001.
- Manager, Registered office, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Many Tech Park, #56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068(Karnataka).
- Distributor of Mapmy India, Einfi Retail Pvt. Ltd., 68, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rinku Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Lal Advocate for opposite party No.1 and 2.
Opposite party no. 3 already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Navigation system model Lx140ws for a sum of Rs.5690/- vide Invoice/Bill dated 23.06.2015 from Flipkart and received on 25.06.2015 from the opposite party no.1 by paying the prescribed amount. It is averred that the opposite party no.1 is the authorized center for delivery of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Fkipkart (online seller) and the opposite party no.3 is the Distributor of MapmyIndia. It is averred that the complainant received a defected product having many issued like speakers voice troubles, signal issue, touch issue, charging hood is very hard to fit in the charging holder and it also damaged the complainant’s car charging holder too and it is not compatible at all etc. It is averred that complainant tried to generate the request but the opposite party’s system failed to do so and after many efforts the complainant e-mail to the opposite party no.2 well in return policy time period i.e. of 10 days for the said product as prescribed by the opposite parties. It is averred that the complainant again e-mailed to the opposite party no.2 many times for the said defect in the product but no positive response received till dated from the opposite parties. It is averred that the complainant also informed the opposite parties by e-mail but they did not pay any heed towards the request of complainant. It is averred that complainant also sent a legal notice dated 17.07.2015 upon the opposite party under registered A.D. Post but no response has been received as yet. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of product i.e. Rs.5690/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the purchase of Navigation System is denied for want of knowledge. It is denied that the complainant received the ordered product from the opposite party No.1 as the opposite party no.1 is not the seller of the product sold to the complainant and the same is evident from the Invoice copy. It is averred that opposite party No.1 is mere a registered reseller on the online market place “Flipkart.com” which is owned and operated by a separate entity and not the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 has not sold any product to the complainant. It is averred that opposite party no.1 being the authorized centre for delivery of opposite party no.2 is false and fabricated and hence denied. It is averred that the opposite party no.1 is a registered seller of the products registered on the online marketplace “flipcart.com”. There does not exist any relationship between the opposite party no.1 and 2 other than as mentioned above. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product in issue. As such it is prayed that complaint against opposite party no.1 may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the purchase of Navigation system is a matter of record. It is averred that opposite party no.2 is an intermediary only, that is, to provide online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its website. It is averred that opposite party no.2 is not engaged in selling of any goods on its own. It is averred that opposite party no.2 just acts as an intermediary/facilitator and provides online space to various registered sellers to sell their products and opposite party no.1 is a registered seller of the products registered on the online marketplace “flipkart.com”. There does not exits any relationship between the opposite party no.1 and 2 other than as mentioned above. It is averred that it is the complainant himself who declined to the refund offer with malafide intention of causing defamation to the opposite party no.2 and extorting illegal money from the opposite parties. It is averred that opposite party No.2 has never sold any product to anyone at its own. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party.
4. Opposite partyno.3 in its reply has submitted that no complaint was ever made by the complainant with MapmyIndia Customer Support even though the Invoice clearly stipulates that in case of after sale supports, queries, warranty claims, service requirements related to the products, the customer shall directly contact MapmyIndia Customer Support. It is averred that the complainant is guilty of negligence and not taking appropriate steps as required as per the invoice and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of theier case.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.11 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2 in their evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.RWA/1, Ex.RWA/2 and documents Ex.RWA/3 to Ex.RWA/4 and has closed his evidence. However opposite party no.3 was proceeded against epxarte vide order dated 16.12.2015 of this Forum.
7. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
8. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the Navigation Set for a sum of Rs.5690/- from the opposite party no.3 as is proved from the Invoice/bill Ex.C1 dated 23.06.2015. It is also not disputed that the complainant was not satisfied with the product because as per his complaint there were some issues like voice trouble, signal and charging etc. So the complainant through e-mail dated 05.07.2015 Ex.C2 had requested the opposite party to refund the amount of product and the opposite party no.2 through its reply Ex.C3 has submitted that the “Seller ‘Navigation’ has a 10 days replacement guarantee for any transit damage, manufacturing defect, within which we’ll be liable to help you with your concern. As your product has been delivered on June 25, 2015, it has crossed this policy time period. Hence returning is not possible as now”. It is also observed that complainant also send mails Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 and legal notice Ex.C8 and the opposite party through an email Ex.C10 dated 04.08.2015 has accepted the refund request but as per email dated 05.08.2015 it is submitted by the complainant that a person contacted the complainant to pick up the article but he did not give any receipt then the complainant refused for the same.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties and from the documents placed on record it is observed that as per the policy of opposite party there was a 10 days replacement guarantee for any transit damage, manufacturing defect, within which seller was liable to help the complainant. As per the opposite party, the complainant has received the product on 25.06.2015 and as per mail dated 05.07.2015 i.e. on 10th day the complainant has requested the opposite party to refund the price. But the same could not be refunded as the opposite party refused to give any receipt for the same. As such it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. As per the statement made by complainant the device in question is with the complainant.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party no.2 & 3(jointly & severally) are liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed that complainant shall return the disputed device to the opposite parties and in turn opposite party No.2 & 3 shall refund the price of device i.e Rs.5690/-(Rupees five thousand six hundred ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.08.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
