Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/263/2016

Mr. Satinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/263/2016
Date of Institution	:	20/04/2016
Date of Decision	:	28/12/2016

 

Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, # 475, Type II Block No.32 CRPF Campus, Hallomajra, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Motorola Mobility India Private Ltd., 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India through authorised signatory.

2.     Flipkart.com, No.447/B, 1^st A Cross, 12^th Main, 4^th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchange, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, Karnataka, India, through authorised signatory.

3.     WS Retail Pvt. Ltd., No.42/1 and 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore-560067, Karnataka, India through authorised signatory.

4.     WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, B Block, 9^th Floor, Garvevhavipalya, Hosur road, Bangalore – 560068, Karnataka, India through authorised signatory.

5.     Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20D, Chandigarh 160020 through authorized signatory.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OPs 2 to 4
	:	OPs 1 & 5 exparte.

                       

                 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member.

1.         The facts, in brief, are that on 14.1.2016, the complainant purchased one Motorola brand mobile phone Moto X Play (XT1562) vide cash memo Annexure I. The said mobile phone was getting restarted at its own and display was not working properly. The matter was immediately reported to OP-5.  As per advice, the defective mobile was handed over in the service centre on 20.2.2016 and the same is still lying with OP-5. Hence this complaint, alleging that the OPs have supplied a defective good and failed to make good the losses suffered by the complainant.
2.         Initially Sh. Manwar Singh, Manager put in appearance on behalf of OP-1 and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. However, on the adjourned date i.e. 22.7.2016, neither the reply and evidence were filed nor anybody put in appearance on behalf of OP-1, hence it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         In its written reply OP-2 has averred that it acts only as an intermediary i.e. to provide an online platform to facilitate the entire transaction of sale and purchase of goods on its website and does not indulge in any sale of products or provide any after sales service.  It has been denied that the OP supplied a defective good to the complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         In their separate written reply, OPs 3 & 4 have averred that they are merely a seller registered on www.flipkart.com and the product bought by the complainant carried warranty issued/provided by the manufacturer against manufacturing defect subject to the terms and conditions as determined by the manufacturer only. The liability to provide after sale services does not lay upon the OPs as they are neither the manufacturer nor the authorised service centre i.e. OPs 1 & 5. It has been stated that the OPs as a goodwill gesture provides 30 days replacement warranty to their customers and it is admitted fact that the complainant did not face any problem with the product during those 30 days. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.         Since none appeared on behalf of OP-5 despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.7.2016.
6.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the contesting OPs.
7.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
8.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for OPs 2 to 4.
9.         It is clear from the cash memo/retail invoice (annexed at page 9 of the complaint) coupled with the affidavit of the complainant that the handset in question was purchased by the complainant for Rs.16,500/- by placing online order with OP-2 and the same was sold by OPs 3 & 4 on 14.1.2016. As per the case of the complainant, the handset in question got defective within the warranty period just after using the same for a month on 20.2.2016 and the same was submitted to OP-5 for the requisite repairs and till date the same is in its possession.
10.         The stand taken by OP-2, the online portal (Flipkart) and OPs 3 & 4 (the sellers) of the handset in question is that as per the order of the complainant they have supplied the goods in time and in good condition, therefore, they are not liable for any deficiency in service. 
11.         The perusal of the job sheet dated 20.2.2016 (annexed at page 8 of the paper book) makes it clear that the handset was submitted to OP-5 with problem description as turn on or off unexpectedly. As per the allegation of the complainant, the handset is still lying with OP-5. However, OP-1 (manufacturer) and OP-5 (service centre) have not appeared to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded exparte which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of OPs 1 & 5 despite notices through registered post proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has been deprived of the usage of the handset in question since a long time even after spending a handsome amount trusting on the brand. Evidently, the money was spent to facilitate himself and not for moving to the service centre and thereafter to the court for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the OPs. The evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted
12.         After considering various aspects of the matter discussed above, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 1 & 5.  So far as the question of liability of OPs 2 to 4 is concerned, they being the online portal and the seller have honoured their part of the contract by supplying the goods in good condition and well in time to the complainant. As such, the complaint qua them deserves to be dismissed. 
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs 1 & 5 and they are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund the invoice price of the handset in question i.e. Rs.16,499/- to the complainant;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

14.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 5 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/12/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member