Orissa

Cuttak

CC/153/2019

GourabMohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology India Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.153/2019

 

Gourab Mohan Singh,

At/PO:Bhanpur,P.S:Pirabazar,

Cuttack Sadar-753011.                                      ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Managing Director,

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited,

8^th Floor,Tower-1,Umiya Business Bay Maratha Halli-Sarjapur,

Outer Ring Road,Bangalore,

Karnataka,India-560103..

 

2.      Proprietor,

Sreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd.,

Ring Road,SouthExtension

Block C,SouthExension I,

New Delhi-110049.

 

3.       Branch Head,

Jeeves Consumer Service Pvt. Ltd.,

765,Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswawr-751007,

Odisha.

 

4.       The Branch Head,

E-Kart Logistics,Surya Bihar,

PO:Sikharpur,Cuttack-Odisha-753012.                              ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     15.11.2019

Date of Order:   16.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr.B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1, 2&4 :Mr.S.K.Mohanty,Adv.& Associates.

For the O.P No.3:                       None.

 

Sri DebasishNayak,President.  

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had placed order for a mobile phone through online shop website on 21.8.19 which he had received on 24.8.19.  The complainant had placed order for one Redme K 20 Pro 6 GB RAM, 128 GB, ROM costing of Rs.27,999/- with insurance “Complete Mobile Protection” for one year activated with effect from 24.8.19, the Flipkart cost was of Rs.399/- and according to the complainant the overall charge was of Rs.29,398/-.  When the mobile phone was received, the complainant was astonished to notice that  a different mobile phone set of Redme Note 7S 3 GB costing of Rs.9999/- in the box of Redme K 20 Pro 6 GB Ram 128 GB ROM variant is kept and he had paid a sum of Rs.28,398/-.   When he found that the mobile phone sent to him through Flipkart was of a cheaper product and that he was cheated, he immediately had contacted the delivery boy of the Flipkart but the delivery boy denied for replacing the same.  The original IMEI no. of the said phone was 7867482041365711 which was written on a sticker behind the mobile phone but the said IMEI number was shown to be of 860389046257156 of the said phone which is completely a different one.  The complainant had immediately contacted the customer helpline and was assured that a team will contact him soon.   After making several mails to the O.Ps, when no fruitful result yielded, the complainant had fileda consumer complaint through online website but his said complaint was rejected by the service provider.  Thus, ultimately, he had filed this case alleging about the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the O.Ps and claiming for cost of the mobile phone to the tune of Rs.28,398/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- and further litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- and also a sum of Rs,1,50,000/- towards his mental agony and suffering.

            He has filed several copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P No.3 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.6.1.21.  However, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have filed their separate written versions whereas O.P no.4 has filed his separate written argument.  From the written version of O.P no.1 it is noticed that the complainant has filed a false case and O.P no.1 is in no way responsible for the wrong if any has been committed.  O.P no.1 admits that the complainant had placed order for a mobile phone of MI brand of model Redme K-20 Pro   through Website of Flipkarton 21.8.19 and had additionally opted for insurance protection.  On 24.8.19 the complainant had raised objection to the Flipkartthroughe.mail that he had received a different product.  O.P no.1 being the manufacturer has no role to play therein.  The complainant had never contacted O.P no.1.  Thus, it is prayed by the O.P no.1 to dismiss the complaint as filed.

            O.P no.2 through his written version has also refuted all the contentions of the complaint petition and has further submitted that the complainant had suppressed material facts, had not approached with lean hands and the complaint petition as filed is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.2 is registered seller through the Website Flipkart.Com.  It is further contention of the O.P no.2 through his written version that the order when placed by the complainant was delivered to him in intact condition as it was received from the manufacturer and thus, the complaint that the complainant had received a different product is baseless.  Thus, it is prayed by the O.P no.2 to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost.

            O.P no.4 through his written argument has stated that his role in this present case is very limited as he had picked up a sealed packet from the product seller and had delivered it to the buyer without tampering, altering, opening or damaging the packet.  Thus, he has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions/argument, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they had practised any unfair trade ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

            To further their case, O.P no.1 has filed his evidence affidavit and so also O.P no.4 has filed his evidence affidavit.  While perusing the said evidence affidavits, it is noticed that both of those are only the reiteration of the contents of their respective written versions/arguments.

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant had placed order for one MI Redme K-20 Pro mobile phone.  The allegation of the complainant is that when he opened the packet, it had contained a different mobile phone which he had not indented and the same was of Redme Note 7S model.  According to him, the cost of the said mobile phone as sent to him was of  Rs.9999/- only whereas the mobile phone as indented by him was of Rs.27,999/-.  While going through the various e.mail chats as exchanged in-between the complainant and the O.Ps, it is noticed that they have apologised for the mistake and have assured to be resolve the problem of the complainant.  Time and again the complainant had written to the O.Ps that he was cheated by them as because they had not provided him the particular mobile phone set for which he had paid a price of Rs.27,999/- but had provided a mobile phone set of a cheaper price which is of Rs.9,999/-.  Thus, it is well evident as per the documents as available in the case record that the complainant was never provided with the particular mobile phone set for which he had placed order and in lieu of it another mobile phone set was provided to him.  Inspite of repeated and regular correspondences made by the complainant, the mobile phone set which was provided to the complainant was not replaced nor the cost of the said mobile phone was returned to the complainant for which the complainant had to approach this Commission.  Accordingly, this Commission has no hesitation here to conclude that there was infact deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and they have indeed practised unfair trade here in this case.  This issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

            From the above discussions and from the materials as available in the case record, thisCommission finds the case of the complainant to be maintainable and the endeavour of each of the O.Ps as made by made through their written versions/argument that they are not liable does not hold good at all.  As per the C.Pact, the manufacturer is also a product seller the Flipkart cannot escape by simply submittingthat he is only an online service provider and has no role here in this case as it is his duty to supervise and ensure that genuine products are being provided.Theseller is also liable because he has sold a wrong product.  Accordingly, it is held that the complainant is liable to he reliefs as claimed by him.Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.Ps no.1,2& 4 and exparte against O.P no.3.  All the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to repay the complainant the cost of the mobile set to the tune of Rs.22,398/- within a month hence alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the litigation of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th day of November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                Sri DebasishNayak

                                                                                                    President

                       

                                                                                                                                      Sri SibanandaMohanty

                                                                                                       Member