Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 95
Instituted on : 5.3.2018
Decided on : 14.01.2020.
Dinesh Kumar, aged 32 years son of Shri Suraj Bhan, resident of Agro Mall, MDU Gate No.2, Rohtak now residing at village Chuliana, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. 12th Floor Tower, D.L.F. Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, through its Director.
- Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd. WZ-199/2 Near Shiv Mandir, Madipur Village, New Delhi West, New Delhi-110063 Order through Flipkart through its Manager.
- Swastik System, SCF-42, HUDA Complex Rohtak through its Manager.
- Filipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main 80 feet Road, 3rd Block Koramangala Industrial Layout Bengaluru through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Anand Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party no.2 & 4.
Opposite party no.1 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:-
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Lenovo WL64140 mobile phone from Flip Kart for a sum of Rs.8099/- through online on 09.12.2017, vide invoice no.FAAAEO1800060108 with one year warranty/replacement. The above said mobile was not functioning properly from the day of its purchase. The complainant contacted with the customer care centre/respondent no.3 on 3.1.2018 and 12.1.2018 for repairing his mobile set but the respondent no.3 told that it is inherent manufacturing defect and is not in a position to repair. The mobile in question is within warranty period and respondents are legally bound to replace/repair the same. The complainant sent email to respondents on 2.2.2018 and company sent the reply. Thereafter, on 16.2.2018, the complainant again sent the email, and the same was replied by company in an unsatisfactory manner. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 18.1.2018 to the respondents and respondents sent a reply in an unsatisfactory manner. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.8099/- alongwith interest of @18% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile till the date of actual realization and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental tension as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.2 and 4 appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.2 submitted in its reply that the role of answering opposite party is only limited to reselling products of various manufacturers and its role comes to the end as soon as product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party has delivered the product in a sealed box to the complainant within the time specified in the order and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the party of answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.4 in its reply has submitted that the role of opposite party no.4 is as an intermediary only, that is, to provide online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its Flipkart Platform. The services of opposite party no.4 are similar to a shopping mall where various shops are rented out to different sellers who independently carryout sale proceedings with the customer/visitors of the shopping mall and in case of any defect in the goods sold by such shop owner/sellers in the shopping mall, it is the shop owner/seller, who is held liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall, where such shops are situated. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No.4 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite parties no.1 & 3 failed to appear before the Forum, despite service. Hence, opposite parties no.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.10.2018 of this Forum.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/K and closed his evidence on 6.3.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 4 was made a statement that the reply already filed on behalf of OPs no.2 and 4 be also read in his evidence.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case, as per bill Ex.CW1/B, complainant had purchased the mobile set on 09.12.2017 for Rs.8099/- from the opposite party No.2. As per copy of job sheet Ex.CW1/C, the defect in the mobile set appeared on 03.01.2018 i.e. within a month and the defects were mentioned as: “Connectivity issue, feature is missing, not working, CA ST Feature Icon missing”. Complainant also sent emails Ex.CW1/D on 02.02.2018 & 16.02.2018 and also sent legal notice Ex.CW1/E dated 17.01.2018, which was replied vide letter Ex.CW1/H. But no action was taken by the opposite parties to resolve the problem of mobile set of the complainant despite his repeated requests. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.8099/-(Rupees eight thousand and ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.03.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the opposite parties at the time of making the payment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.01.2020.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.
