Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/469/2016

Dharminder Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn United Telelinks (Bangaloare) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	469 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	05.07.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	13.02.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Dharminder Yadav s/o Sita Ram r/o H. No. 1729, Indira Colony, Mani Majra, Chandigarh (UT).

         …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Karbonn United Telelinks (Bangalore) Limited #39/13, Appareddypalya Main Road of 7^th Main, Hal IInd Stage, Indiranagar, Banglore 560038, Karnatka.

 

2]  Snapdeal Corporate Head Office Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 246, Ist floor, Phse-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi.

 

3]  The Incharge Aikon Technologies service centre SCO 2405, Sector 22C, Ist floor, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:- Complainant in person.

 OPs NO.1 & 3 exparte

             Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh. Anuj Ahluwalia,            Advocate

     

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          In nutshell, the complainant purchased a mobile telephone Karbonn Aura 8GB on 21.2.2016 for an amount of Rs.3777/- through Snapdeal.com (Ann.C-1). Soon after purchase of the handset in question, the same started giving problem of hanging. Accordingly the complainant approached the service centre of OP No.1 on 13.4.2016 for repair of telephone vide Service Job Sheet (Annexure C-2). It is alleged that till date the OPs NO.1&2 are failed to rectify the defect in the handset in question despite numerous visits to the service centre. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. Nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 despite service, hence were proceeded ex-parte on 27.1.2017.

         Sh.Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate appeared and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of OP No.1 but did not file any reply in rebuttal to the complaint. 

 

3]       Opposite Party No.2 has filed reply and stated that no cause of action arose to the complainant against OP No.2, which only provides an electronic platform and acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and end users. Once a user accepts the offer of sale of the product made by the third party seller on the website, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as set out by the seller as part of the terms for sale displayed on the website.  The OP No.2 does not directly or indirectly sell any products on its website and all the products on the website are sold by the third party sellers who avail the online marketplace services provided by OP No.2. It is further pleaded that the answering OP NO.2 has not charged any amount from the complainant for using the services available on its website.  As such the answering OP has no role to play regarding the defect in the handset in question and if there is any defect in the product in question it is the liability of the manufacturer and its service centre to repair the same.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

4]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.2 made in the reply.

 

5]       Contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have also perused the record on file.

 

7]       The complainant has purchased the mobile telephone on 21.2.2016 but since 13.4.2016 lying with Opposite Party NO.3, the authorised service centre of OP NO.1 for repair.

 

8]       The Opposite Parties have not come forward with any solution to remove the defect in the phone within its warranty period and to settle the grievance of the complainant.

 

9]       It will be injustice, if we leave such genuine customers at the mercy of unscrupulous traders, who sell their products by making false promises but do not stand the test of fair trade practices and fails to provide proper services after tall promises. 

 

10]      Keeping in view the above facts, the OPs are jointly & severally are found deficient in their services.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are hereby directed to replace the defective mobile telephone set sold to the complainant vide Invoice No.S861AO/15-16/23864, dated 21.2.2016, with new one, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

         If the order is not complied within the stipulated period, the OPs shall be further burdened with additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- payable to the complainant. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

13^th February, 2017                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER