BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.415 of 2018
Date of Instt. 05.10.2018
Date of Decision: 05.03.2019
Anurag Aggarwal S/o Late Shri Kamal Aggarwal, 46, Vasant Avenue, Jalandhar-144003.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangla, Bangalore-560034 Through its Chairman/Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.
2. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: H. No.37 3 Old Rejender Nagar, New Delhi-110060 Through its Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Atul Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs exparte.
Order
Jyotsna (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the allegations of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed with the direction to refund the amount of Rs.11,999/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from 08.10.2017 till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the mental tension, harassment, inconveniences and financial loss etc and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the OPs are engaged in selling of various items and goods through internet/websites to the general public for consideration throughout India particularly at Jalandhar. The complainant had ordered for an LeEco Le Max2 (rose Gold, 32 GB) worth Rs.11,999/- which was supplied and delivered to the complainant through courier along with invoice dated 08.10.2017 at Jalandhar. The complainant had made payment to the OP by way of cash on delivery at Jalandhar. Copy of the Invoice is attached.
3. That within few months of purchase, on or about 18.06.2018, complainant noted that the said mobile set is not working properly and was having defects in the software, touch screen and sound, speaker, ringer etc. That after noting the above said shortcomings and defects in the said mobile set, complainant immediately approached OPs through emails and requested for either rectifying the defects or for changing the said mobile set or for refund of the amount and return of the said product. Moreover, complainant approached and tried to handover the said mobile set to service centre of OPs at Jalandhar, but the said centre refused to repair the said mobile set free of cost under warranty stating that they shall repair only after complainant shall make payment of Rs.3500/- in cash before repairs. The said mobile phone set sold by OPs was of inferior quality, made from defective and inferior and expired material. The due to the above said facts there is deficiency in services, negligence, unfair trade practices and restrictive trade practices on the part of the OPs due to which complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment, inconveniences, loss of time, damages etc and complainant assessed the same to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in terms of money. That the cause of action accrued to the complainant at Jalandhar where delivery of the said mobile phone set was received by complainant and from where payment was made to OPs and where OPs are working and running their office. Further cause of action accrued to the complainant on and after 23.09.2017 when the said mobile phone became defective at Jalandhar. Hence, this complaint.
4. After the formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs did not bother to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove exparte claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also examined the material on the record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile Make LeEco Le Max2 (rose Gold, 32 GB), for an amount of Rs.11,999/- from the OPs, which was supplied through courier along with Invoice dated 08.10.2017 at Jalandhar and copy of the same is Ex.C-1, wherein warranty of one year has been mentioned. Within few month of the purchase, the complainant noted that the said mobile set is not working properly and was having defects in the software, touch screen and sound, speaker, ringer etc. The complainant lodged a complaint with OP through email, which was acknowledged by OP No.1 as per Ex.C-2. Complainant also approached the service centre at Jalandhar, but the said centre refused the said mobile free of cost. The true copies of the communications between the parties are Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3.
8. From the above facts, it reveals that there is some defect in the mobile phone of the complainant and due to that reason, he made complaint to the OP on 18.06.2018, but despite that complaint, the OPs did not bother even the service centre of the manufacturing firm also refused to repair the mobile phone free of cost being under warranty and then complainant again approached to the OP with whom a long conversation was carried out and the printout of the same has been brought on the file by the complainant Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The conversation of the complainant with the OP itself established that there is some defect in the mobile phone, if so, then it is the duty of the OP to repair it free of cost as the same is within warranty, but the OP did not bother to appear and contest the complaint and as such, we have no option except to hold that the un-rebutted and un-challenged pleading and evidence of the complainant is sufficient to prove the version of the complainant and accordingly, we have no earthly ground to discard the exparte evidence of the complainant. So, accordingly, we hold that the complainant is entitled for getting repair the mobile phone from the OP, because there is no direct or indirect expert evidence came on the file to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile and accordingly, the instant complaint is partly accepted and OPs are directed to get repair the mobile set of the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3500/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs further will pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,500/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
05.03.2019 Member President
