Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 604.
Instituted on : 12.12.2018.
Decided on : 31.08.2020.
Vaishali Khurana daughter of Shri Rajender Khurana, aged 22 years, resident of House No.214/27, Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Amazon India, Regd. Office : Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram(W)Banglore560055 through its Managing Director.
- Golden Enterprises, Authorized service centre Motorola Mobile, SCF, 42 HUDA Complex, Rohtak, Hayrana-124001.
- Motorola Mobility, India Private Limited, 12th floor, Tower D/DLF Cyber Green, DLF Cyber City Gurugram-122002.
……….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: Sh.Ashok Makkar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Raj, Advocate for opposite party No.1
Sh.G.K.Lalit, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Moto G5s Plus from the respondent no.1 on dated 29.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.15079/-. But just after a few days of the purchase of above said mobile phone, it started creating problems like automatically display blank and hanging problems etc. So the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 for the repair of alleged mobile phone but opposite party No.2 just after updating the software had returned the same to the complainant and did not provide any job sheet. Thereafter, same problem appeared and complainant again contacted the opposite party No.2 and this time also opposite party no.2 did not repair the mobile set properly. Then complainant contacted the care centre at Delhi but they also provided the same service. Complainant requested the opposite parties many times to resolve the problems of mobile phone as the same was within warranty period but despite his repeated requests and submitting the mobile phone in care centre on dated 02.07.2018, 30.10.2018 and 28.11.2018, problem could not be resolved. The act of opposite parties of supplying the defective mobile set to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.15079/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.1 Amazon Seller Services Private Limited(ASSPL) does not sell any products and it merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. Therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. ASSPL is not involved in the transaction between the complainant and the seller. Hence opposite party No.1 is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of any contract entered into directly between the complainant and the seller. Therefore, instant complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.1 on this count alone.
3. Opposite party no.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the mobile set had no major problems. The said mobile set was not having updated software and it just needed to be updated which was done by the respondent no.2. Further the mobile phone had no major problem in it. The complainant did not keep his mobile phone with proper care. The mobile was rectified each time the complainant approached the service centre. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.CW2 to Ex.CW7 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.07.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed its evidence on dated 19.07.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3 made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on dated 04.09.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 29.12.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.CW2 dated 02.07.2018, there was problem of “Display blank automatically and hanging issue”, as per job sheet Ex.CW5 dated 30.10.2018, there was problem of “Auto switch off & Some time display blank” and as per Ex.CW6, there was problem of “touch stuck issue”. It is also observed that the alleged defects appeared in the mobile set within warranty period but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repairs, which proves deficiency in service on their part. As such opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 25% depreciation(Rs.15079/- less 25% = Rs.11280/-) as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 6 months.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to pay the amount of Rs.11280/-(Rupees eleven thousand two hundred and eighty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.12.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service 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 in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the awarded amount from the opposite party No.3.
8. 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:
31.08.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
