IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 31st   day of August, 2017

Filed on 16.05.2017

Present

 

1.  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2.  Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)

3.   Smt. Jasmine D  (Member)

 

in 

C.C.No. 124/2017

Between

 

  Complainants:-        Opposite Parties:- Sri. Joshy James 1. Ausu India Pvt.Ltd

         Kandanadu Veedu 402,Supreme Chambers 17/18

       Kattoor.P.O Sha Industrail Estate

       Kalavoor, Alappuzha Veera Desai Road

Andheri West, Mumbai-400053

 

                                                                      2. Flipcart International Pvt.Ltd

            No.6/B 7th Main, 80 Feet Road 3rd Block Koramangala

Banglore.

 

3. Sonic Systems

1st Floor, Pulimoottil Trade Centre

Amman Kovil Street

Mullackal 

Alappuzha – 688 001

 

 

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

 

   The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone  through Flip cart on 25/5/2016 for Rs. 6999/- and the opposite parties assured one year warranty for the product, but the phone became defective within 7 months for the date of purchase.  The complainant had approached 3rd opposite party for rectifying the defect.  Even thought the product is under warranty they charged for repairing and also the defect has not been properly rectified.  According to the complainant when the opposite party returned the phone it has physical damages and there was no such damage when he entrusted the phone.  When the complainant questioned about the same they behave badly to the complainant.  The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.

2.  Notice was served to the opposite parties 1st opposite party represented before the Forum 2nd opposite party filed version. 3rd opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and set exparte.

3.  Version of the 2nd opposite parties is as follows:-

  That the 2nd   opposite party only acts as an intermediary through its web interface www. Flipkart. Com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users of the Flipkart Platform.  It is submitted that these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders.  The answering 3rd opposite party does not directly or indirectly sells any products on Flipkart Platform.  Rather all the products on Flipkart Platform are sold by 3rd party sellers, who avail of the online market place services provided by the answering 3rd opposite party on terms decided by the respective sellers only.  The sellers directly raise invoices to the end customers for the products sold and bear all contractual risks.  The customers purchasing products from such sellers directly make the payments for their purchases either on a pre-paid basis (net banking/ credit card/ debit card) or cash on delivery basis. The ultimate monetary beneficiary of such sale proceedings is the seller.  In the instant complaint also, it is evident from the invoice copy attached by the complainant with his complaint that the actual seller of the product is a 3rd party seller and not the  3rd opposite party herein.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has wrongly arrayed this 3rd opposite party in the present complaint.  That the  3rd opposite party has not charged any amount from the complainant for using the services available on online marketplace Flipkart Platform. It is submitted that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of the definition of the term “Consumer”.  That the 3rd opposite party submits that role/involvement of  3rd opposite party is as 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 Flipkart Platform.  The services of  3rd opposite party are similar to a shopping malls where various shops are rented out to different sellers who independently carryout sale proceedings with the customer/visitors of the shopping mall in case of  any defect in the goods sold by such shop owner/ seller, who is held liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall where such shops are situated.  In the same way, the 3rd opposite party is not involved in the entire transaction except for providing the online platform for the transactions and the concerned contracts of sale and purchase is between the seller and the buyer (here complainant) only and hence this 3rd opposite party shall not be held liable for any liability owing to such contract.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

4.  Complainant produced original bill which was marked as Ext.A1. and the  mobile phone was marked as Ext.MO1.   

5. .  Considering the allegations of the complainant and contention of the 2nd opposite party the Forum has raised the following issues:-

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite     parties? 

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

6.  Issues 1 &2 :-

The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone on  25/5/2016 for an amount of Rs.6999/- manufactured by the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party.  The product has one year warranty and during the warranty period the product became defective and entrusted to the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party

 for rectifying the defect, but the defect has not been rectified so far.  The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.  

The complainant produced bill which was marked as Ext.A1.  From this it can be seen that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone on 25/5/2016 manufactured by the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party.  Admittedly the product has one year warranty.   The complainant produced the phone before the Forum and according to the complainant the phone is defective and he could not use the mobile phone.  Since the product is under warranty the opposite parties are liable to repair the product free of cost.  Since the opposite party failed to provide assured service to the complainant they have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief. The opposite parties are jointly and severally for the same.  So the complaint is to be allowed.

       In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the mobile phone free of cost to satisfaction of the complainant.  Opposite parties are further directed Rs.1000/- towards cost.

  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same model/price. 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st  day of  August, 2017.

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D  (Member)

Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

                     Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)

  Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

MO1 - Mobile phone

Ext. A1            -          Original Bill dtd 22/5/2016

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

 

// True Copy //                                By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-