DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 118 of 07-05-2019

Decided on : 25-08-2022

Gurjeet Kular S/o Baldev Singh R/o V. Bhucho Kalan Teh. and District Bathinda.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Flipkart sold by Consulting Rooms Pvt Ltd Instakart Services Pvt Ltd c/o DHL Goyal, Builders, NH-1 Highway Banur Tepla Road, V. Mehmadpur Tehsil Rajpura Distt. Patiala through its authorized person.

2. Flipkart Register Office Consulting Rooms Pvt Center FF World Trade Tower, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place New Delhi through its authorized person.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : None for Complainant.

For opposite parties : Sh. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:-

1. The complainant Gurjeet Kular (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Flipkart and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased an AC of Model Number WW30928/ Mark Q HSN84151010, FKAC 103SIAI18250816, FAKAC 103SIAO13250768 of worth Rs. 20,499/- from opposite party No.1 on dated 04-01-2019 through Invoice No FAB-15M1900024076 and order IP No. OD114327163850813000 and opposite party no.1 vide selling the above said AC has shown on his online website/app about above said AC and on believing this the complainant has purchased above said AC from opposite party no.1 and the company has given one year Quarantee on the same. After some time some problem has occurred in the AC i.e. AC is not giving proper cooling and then the complainant informed on consumer care number of opposite parties and then the opposite parties sent a service man through Appliance Care Shop No. 6, Near Bharat Gas Agency, Veer Colony, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda on dated 25-4-2019 and after checking the AC the service man informed the complainant that there is no gas in the above said AC and he filled gas in the AC and charges Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant.

3. The complainant alleged that the opposite party no.1 knowingly and intentionally sent a defective piece to the complainant which is already with gas and thus played fraud with the complainant and when there was one year warrantee given by the opposites parties to the complainant then they wrongly get Rs.3,000/- for gas refilling wrongly and these acts of the opposite parties are bad and deficiency in their services. The complainant has suffered mental tension and agony and loss of physical health as such complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- due to harassment and mental tension. There are deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice.

4. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental cruely, harrasment and agony due to deficiency in service on their part.

5. Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that complainant has supressed true and material facts and has not approached the forum with clean hands. That opposite parties are not engaged in selling of any goods manfactured or produced on his own that the product in question was sent by manufacturer directly to the complainant and complainant has not impleaded manufacturer as well as service provider as party. Opposite party is just a registered resell on the web portal on Flipkart.com. The roll of registered seller is just to send intimation on through online to the manufacturer for the sale of product. That the grievance of the complainant relates to after sale and service issue in the product and the opposite parties has no role to play. That the warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer and the opposite parties is out of picture once the product has been delivered to the complainant. Further 10 days return/replacement was given by the opposite parties and in this case complainant has not approached the opposite parties for return/replacement product which implies that and the time of purchased and subsequently till 10 days of its use the complainant did not face any issue with the product in question.

6. On merits, it has been pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed of dismissal of complaint.

7. In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit dated 07-05-2019 (Ex.C-1), photocopy of invoice dated 25-04-2019 (Ex.C-2) and photocopy of tax invoice dated 04.01.2019 (Ex.C-3).

8. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence photocopy of resolution as Ex.OP-1/1.

9. None appeared for complainant to argue the case. The learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated their version as pleaded in their respective pleadings.

10. We have heard the learn counsel for opposite parties complainant and gone through the evidence produced by parties.

11. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he purchased A.C. On 04.01.2019 from opposite party No.1 and the company has given one year warranty of this product. After some time, some problem occured in the A.C. i.e. A.C. was not giving proper cooling and complainant informed on consumer care number of opposite parties and opposite parties sent a service man through appliance care shop bathinda on 25.04.2019, who after checking the A.C. informed the complainant that there is no gas in the A.C. and charged Rs.3000/- from the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 sent defective A.C. to complainant and played fraud with the complainant and further charging of Rs.3000/- for gas refilling amounts to deficiency in service.

12. We have also perused the file and considered the evidence lead by the parties.

13. Perusal of file reveals that complainant failed to bring on file any expert opinion to prove any defect in Air Conditioner. Complainant further failed to bring on file any warranty card to show terms and conditions of warranty. Document produced by complainant Ex.C-2 i.e. photocopy of invoice dated 25.04.2019 does not support the case of complainant. It is not the case of complainant that Air Conditioner was not giving cooling from the very first day, rather it is a pleaded case of complainant that after some time problem has occured in the Air Conditioner. Perusal of document Ex.C-2 does not show that there was any leakage in the said Air Conditioner, So, this document makes the case of complainant doubtful. Further perusal of Ex.C-2 does not establish that Appliance Care has any realtionship with manufacturer or opposite party No.1. Surprisingly, complainant has not arrayed manufacturer as party to this complaint.

14. So, This Commission is of the view that complainant is failed to prove his case by leading cogent and admissible evidence. Hence, complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

15. The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to Covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced :

25-08-2022

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

President

(Paramjeet Kaur)

Member