Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/285

GURMEET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON SELLER PVT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

         150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO.  285/15

Gurmeet Kaur/Ritu Kaur

WZ-78, Tatar Pur

New Delhi-110027                                                   …… Complainant

VERSUS

1. Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd.   Ground Floor, Eros Corporation, Nehru House                    

New Delhi-110019

 

2. I Ball Service Center

622, 6^th floor, Jaina Tower 1

District Center, Janak Puri

New Delhi-58

 

3. I Ball Service Center

C-44/2, Phase-2, Okhla

New Delhi

……..Opposite parties

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the facts as alleged  by the complainant in the present complaint are that she purchased online i Ball Tablet Model Q18 for a sum of Rs. 13048/- on 04.04.2015 vide invoice no. ID404953599104059500 from the OP-1. The said product in dispute has one year warranty. It is alleged that the Tablet started giving problem on 06.04.2015 regarding charging of tablet and downloading and the complainant contacted customer care of the OP-1 who told to contact the authorized service center. Thereafter it is alleged that the complainant visited authorized service center for repair of the Tablet on 09.04.2015 the product in dispute was checked by the service center and was repaired and returned to the complainant on the same day. The complainant alleged that the Tablet again started giving same problem on same day i.e. 09.04.2015 and she contacted the OP-2 on 19.04.2015. The OP-2 checked the tablet and told the complainant that the issue arose due to lead problem. The complainant requested the op-2 for replacement of the tablet but no heed was paid and Op-2 returned the tablet. It is alleged that the complainant contacted the OP-1 for refund of the money but the Op-1 send an email stating refund will be made only if DOA certificate will be provided by the complainant.  It is alleged by the complainant the tablet is totally dead and lodged police complaint against OP-3. Hence the present complaint for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prayed for directions to OP-2 to refund a sum of Rs. 13048/- cost of tablet and Rs. 1,00,000/- for compensation on account of mental agony and harassment  and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the Ops. The OP-1 appeared and filed reply to the complaint asserting that the Op-1 is merely providing the technology platform and is intermediately.  It is further asserted that the seller in the present matter is M/S Mehta Infoses which is not made party. It is asserted that the complainant is not an consumer visa-vis the op-1 and it is asserted that the OP-1 is only a facilitator in the transaction and is neither a seller nor a manufacturer and it offered the full refund on 07.10.2015 on procuring for DOA certificate which the complainant refused and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The OP-2 and 3 also filed reply to the complaint stating that the complaint is false , frivolous and baseless and is not maintainable by law. It is asserted by the OP-2 and 3 their name is wrongly impleaded as i. ball service center whereas the name of the OP-2 and 3 is best IT World India pvt. Ltd. And I ball service center is the name of the product and it is further asserted that the forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint as registered office of OP-2 and 3 is in Mumbai.

On merits it is asserted that as per the records the complainant has only visited once at their authorized service centre with issue of charging and setting of tablet. It is further alleged that the engineer of Op-2 and 3 thoroughly checked tablet and found no problem and has explained to the complainant how to install the application and setting and also told about proper method to be adopted for charging. It is further asserted that the Op-2 and 3 is also always ready and willing to provide services to the complainant and to rectify the defect if any for which the complainant has to approach it. It again denied that there is any problem in the tablet and denied that there is any issue regarding lead of tablet. They also denied the allegations that the complainant has approached for refund of the money or DOA certificate and asserted that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops -2 and 3 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The complainant filed  Rejoinder to the reply filed by the Ops-1 and 2.

When the parties were asked to lead evidence the complainant filed  affidavit of evidence and she relied on copy of invoice.

The OP-1 also filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Rohitoz Singh reiterating the facts of reply on oath and relied on terms and conditions of use and sale.

The Op-2 filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Sanjay Tiwari. The parties have also filed written arguments also.

We have heard counsel for the Ops as the complainant is not putting appearance since 08.03.2018 the Forum has not option except to pass final orders.

The controversy involved in the present complaint is whether the complaint is entitled for the relief she  has claimed.  From perusal of documents filed by the complainant it reveals that the complainant has purchased the product in dispute but she is unable to corroborate by any cogent evidence to show that she approached Ops several times for the same issue arising in the product under dispute and there is no sufficient material on record to show that the tablet is dead except the fact stated in the affidavit which are rebutted by OP-2 and OP-3 specifically. Though the Op-2 and 3 admitted that only once the complainant visited the service center regarding the issue of charging and setting which was resolved by them. There is no sufficient evidence which supported the version of the complainant that she has approached any of the Ops after the tablet was repaired. We are of considered view that complainant has miserably filed to establish any deficiency in service on part of Ops.

The complaint is devoid of merits. Resultantly the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

Order pronounced on :- 07.12.2018

(K.S. MOHI)                                                                            (PUNEET LAMBA)

     President                                                                                    Member