Haryana

Karnal

CC/526/2019

Virendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asus India Customer Care - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 526 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.14.08.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 04.03.2020

 

Virendra Kumar son of Ghirrau Ram, resident of House no.142, Palam Colony, Karnal-132001. Mobile no.9996156282.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Asus India Customer Care, 18/474 Lakshmi Tower, Old Town Anant Puram, Opposite Triveni Big Cinema, Mumbai, Mumbai City, Maharashtra (India).

2. Asus Service Centre, F1 Info Solutions & Service Private Ltd., shop no.349, 1^st floor, Mughal Canal, Karnal-132001, Mobile no.8199984116.

3.Flip Kart Internet, Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit no.6/B, 7^th floor, 80 feet Road, 3^rd Block, Karamangala, Bangalore-650034.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                   OPs no.1 and 2 exparte.

                   Shri Pawandeep Kalyan Advocate for OP no.3.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased one brand new mobile phone make Asus on 10.12.2018 worth Rs.14999/- with one year warranty from OP no.1 through OP no.3. The mobile of the complainant was defective from the very beginning and was having manufacturing defects i.e. auto on off, poor network connectivity, hang problem, voice broken, touch miss, over heat when charge. The complainant made so many complaints to OPs for the removal of the defects but of no use. On 03.01.2019, the complainant approached the OP no.2 and told about the defect in his mobile set. The OP no.2 has taken the mobile from complainant and change the motherboard of the set and repaired the same. The complainant’s mobile was worked only for few days properly and in the month of February, 2019 the mobile again has started creating problems. The complainant has made complaint to OP no.2, who again taken the mobile in the morning and returned the same in the evening, software has taken updated by the OPs with the assurance that now the mobile will work properly. But after 20-25 days, set was not charging then the complainant told the problem to OP no.2. OP no.2 changes the adopter and data cable with new one as after 10 days. On 08.04.2019 and 29.04.2019 complainant again approached the OP no.2 for rectification of the defects of mobile. Every time, OP no.2 has updated the software and has not repaired or replaced the defective parts of the mobile. Even on demand, the OP no.2 has refused to issue the job sheet. OP no.2 asked the complainant that he will send the mobile to OP no.1 and he also requested to collect his new mobile within 10 days. On 04.04.2019 the complainant has visited the OP no.2 and requested him to handover the new mobile phone in place of defective mobile, but OP no.2 threatened the complainant not to come again on his shop. The complainant also made a complaint to OP no.1 company and apprised them with all the problems suffered by him, but they also showed their inability to resolve the problems of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, initially representative of OP no.1 appeared but did not file any written version after availing several opportunities including last opportunity, hence the defence of the OP no.1 was struck off on 12.12.2019. On 25.02.2020 none has come present on behalf of OP no.1, hence proceeded against exparte.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.,09.2019.

4.             OP no.3 appeared and filed written version stating therein that OP no.3 provides online market place platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, health care and personal products, home appliances and electronics etc. It is further stated that the said ‘Flipkart Platform’ is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. It is further stated that in the present case that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller and not the OP no.3. The complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP no.3 in the present complaint. It is further stated that the product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by OP no.3 and OP no.3 has no role in providing warranty of the product sold by an independent seller through the flipkart platform of OP no.3. It is further stated that the complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that the he has grievances against manufacturer and the authorized service centre representative i.e. OPs no.1 and 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2019.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsha Kiran Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.RW2 and closed the evidence on 25.02.2020.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of complainant and learned counsel of OP no.3 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

8.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a mobile phone make Asus on 10.12.2018 worth Rs.14999/- with one year warranty from OP no.1 through OP no.3. The mobile of the complainant was defective from the very beginning and was having manufacturing defects i.e. auto on off, poor network connectivity, hang problem, voice broken, touch miss, over heat when charge. The complainant made so many complaints to OPs for the removal of the defects but of no use.

9.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.3, in brief, is that ‘Flipkart Platform’ is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers.

10.            The purchased a mobile phone make Asus on 10.12.2018 worth Rs.14999/- from OP no.1 through OP no.3. The mobile of the complainant was defective from the very beginning and was having manufacturing defects i.e. auto on off, poor network connectivity, hang problem, voice broken, touch miss, over heat when charge. So, he reported the matter to OP no.2 the authorized service centre of the company (manufacturer).  OP no.2 kept the mobile set but did not rectify the defect after their several effort. In support of his allegations complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1 and copy of job sheet Ex.C2. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant OPs  no.1 and 2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the OPs no.1 and 2 either to rectify the mobile set of the complainant or to replace the same, but OPs no.1 and 2 failed to do so.. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the OPs no.1 and 2 was deficient.

11.            As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 being manufacturer to refund Rs.14,999/- i.e. the cost of the mobile set to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to handover the defective mobile set to the OP no.1 at the time of refunding of amount. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:04.03.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member