Haryana

StateCommission

A/398/2022

SURAJ AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.M. PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTION - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

13 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

  Date of Instituion:22.08.2022

                Date of final hearing:13.01.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:13.01.2023

 

                                      APPEAL No.398 of 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Suraj Aggarwal S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar resident of Manan Panan, House No.34/39, Ward No.16, near Raju Atta Chakki, Gopal Bhawan, Bhiwani.

                                                                                       .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

1. G.M. Paytm mobile solution limited, B 121, Sector 5 Noida, UP.
2. Manager, Girnar newtel solution private limited, B-2-108, 6^th B cross, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
3. Blue dart courier services, Biju tower, near Meham Gate, Bhiwani.
4. HTC India private limited (depot), G4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector 30, near National Highway 8, Gurugram.
5. TVS electronics limited, unit number 105, first floor, DLF grand Mall, DLF city, Phase 2, Gurgaon. 

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    None for the appellant (Received by post).

                  

                  

O R D E R

Per: Manjula, Member:

 

          The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant had ordered online a new mobile phone of HTC company desire 728 dual sim vide bill dated 30.07.2016 through Blue Dart courier in the first week of August-2016, vide order ID paytm 1923737155, IMEI No.35988064847125 amounting to Rs.13,610/-. It was alleged that the company had sent unsealed parcel of mobile and there was a technical fault in the mobile. A complaint was made in this regard to the Paytm call centre who told that the mobile be returned to the courier services but no one came to pick up the mobile. It was also alleged that despite assurance that the mobile phone will be taken back by courier company within one or two days, none had come to collect the mobile in question, however, the complainant was informed through email that the seller refused to replace the phone or cost. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests, Ops did not pay any heed towards the request of complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the Ops. On 14.02.2017, Ops No.1 & 2 proceeded against ex-parte and Ops No.4 & 5 given up being unnecessary party vide separate statement of complainant vide order dated 02.07.2021. Written statement of OP No.2 received through speed post whereas OP No.3 filed a separate written statement.

3.      In reply OP No.2 denied the allegations of the complaint that OP is neither the manufacturer and nor liable to replace the product. It was also submitted that the complainant did not implead manufacturer in the array of parties, whereas the main cause of action arise against the manufacturer. Further alleged that complainant had never reported the issue of receiving unsealed package by him with OP No.2. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on his part.

4.      OP No.3 filed his separate reply stating therein that their agreement of shipment was directly with OP No.1 and not with the complainant. It was also submitted that the airway bill number of the said service has also not been given by the complainant due to which, OP No.3 was not able to give a technical reply to the complaint of complainant.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani dismissed the complaint vide order dated 09.08.2022.

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Bhiwani, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.

5.      Perusal of the record reveals that it is not disputed that one mobile set desire 728 dual sim of HTC company was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.13,610/- which was received by him in the first week of August-2016 through blue dart courier/OP No.3. The plea of the complainant is that the parcel received by him was unsealed and mobile phone was having a technical defect. It is not the case of the complainant that the parcel was not received by him but by his family member in his absence. So, it is clear that the parcel was received by him but he had neither raised any objection to the delivery boy nor he had reported the matter to OP No.3. The complainant could refuse to receive the parcel being unsealed but he remained totally silent in this regard. Moreover, the complainant has not given the details of the date/month when he had received the alleged unsealed and damaged parcel of the mobile. No doubt, OP No.3 is responsible for delivery of product/mobile but the complainant never reported to OP No.2 that the mobile was received in an unacceptable condition. Another plea of the complainant is that despite assurance the device was not taken by the Ops. Annexure C-3 shows that the complainant did not furnish the supporting documents which were required by the Ops for the aforesaid job. Another plea taken by the complainant is that the mobile was having a technical defect but the complainant had not mentioned in the complaint the nature of defect whether there was some charging defect, display, screen or whether it was having some other technical defect. If any defect is proved in the mobile set then necessary direction could have been issued to the manufacturer to replace the product or to rectify the said defect in the mobile set, but the manufacturer was not arrayed as respondent/OP. It is also true that the complainant has not placed on record his aadhar card or any other document to show whether he in fact is resident of address given in the complaint. The complainant has placed on record evidence annexure C-2 to annexure C-6 which show that complainant received the packet in August 2016, but he remained silent for about 5-6 months because the aforesaid documents shows that the complaint was made in the month of December-2016. As per the policy of the company, the seller will only replace the product within 15 days from the date of delivery of product, in case where the product is damaged or defective. Because the complainant made the complaint after more than 5 months of the receipt of the parcel thus, the Ops had rightly refused to replace the same. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merit.  

7.      In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in pleadings of the appellant. The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

9.      Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

10.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.    Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of present appeal be released in favour of the complainant/respondent against proper receipt and identification after expiry of the period of filing appeal/revision, if any.

12.    File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.              

 

 

                                                                  

 

                                                                                    (Manjula)

                                                                     Member

 

Pronounced On:  13.01.2023                                                                  

 

M.S.