Haryana

StateCommission

A/3/2019

BHAVESH SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOTOROLA MOBOLITY INDIA PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

JAGVIR SHARMA

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.03 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 03.01.2019

                                                         Date of Final Hearing: 06.03.2023

Date of pronouncement: 28.03.2023

 

1. Bhavesh Sethi S/o Sh.Brij Mohan Sethi R/o H.No.983, Sector-23, NIT, Faridabad.
2. Priyanka Sethi D/o Sh.Brij Mohan Sethi R/o HNo.983, Sector-23, NIT, Faridabad.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Motorola Mobolity India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, 12^th Floor, DLF, Cyber Greens, Tower D, DLF City Phase (head Office), DLF, Cyber City, Gurugram 122002.

2.      Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., through its India Head/Managing Director, Ozone Manay Tech Park, # 56/18 & 55/09, 7^th Floor,Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Banglore 560068, Karnataka, India.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Akhil Bhasin Advocate for the respondent No.1 (already ex parte vide order dated 17.01.2020).

                   Mr.Vikas Gulia, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2017, the complainant purchased one Moto Z play mobile phone for a total sum of Rs.24,999/- from respondent No.2, who was authorized dealer of OP No.1.  Within the warranty period, the mobile was not properly working and he approached authorized service centre for repair on 19.08.2017.  After rectifying the mobile, the  authorized service centre handed over the mobile phone on 26.08.2017 and  thereafter the  mobile was not working properly. The front flash of the mobile was damaged during the repairs.  He again approached service centre to replace the mobile with new one but  to no avail.  The complainant registered the complaint through mail to the customer care, however they replied  that they were not replace the mobile and asked to visit the service centre for repair. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

2.      OP Nos.1 and  2 were proceeded against ex parte.  OP No.3 filed separate written version. It was alleged that learned District Forum at Faridabad itself in a similar consumer complaint in CC No.64 of 2017 titled as Omveer Singh Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. has held vide order dated 08.02.2018 that it was only the manufacturer and the authorized service centre who was liable  for rectifying any kind of defect in the product. The flipkart internet was an electronic plateform which acted as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between third party sellers and independent and customers.  The  Flipkart has not role in providing warranty of product sold. It was further submitted that there was no privity of contract  between the complainant and Flipkart.  Rest of the averments are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Faridabad has allowed the complaint against OP NOs.1 and 2 vide order dated 04.12.2018. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1to 2. The complainant has used the said phone for almost five months. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally, are directed to refund the purchase value of the said phone after deducting 25% of the purchase value as depreciation cost, subject to return of the said defective phone. The opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- on account of mental agony and Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Jagvir Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Vikas Gulia, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

6.       It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile set  from opposite party No.3 i.e. flipkart Internet Private Limited as respondent No.2 in appeal for a sum of Rs.24,999/- vide invoice dated 03.03.2017.  It is also not disputed that during the warranty period, the mobile set has occurred problem.  It is also not disputed that certain parts were changed and delivered the mobile on 28.08.2017  (Annexure C-2) to the complainant.  Perusal of file shows that vide email dated 28.08.2017 at 1.59 p.m. (Annexure C-3) as well as Annexure C-4 reported that problem was not resolved  because  mobile phone was gone black for 10-20 seconds.

7.      It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs.2500/- to the complainant vide order dated 19.04.2022, but the respondent No.1 did not pay the amount to him.

8.      Since the OP Nos.1 and 2 have not come present to contest the complaint. The evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim against opposite parties Nos.1 and 2.  No enhancement of compensation is made out.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal stands dismissed on merits.

10.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

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

12.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

28th  March, 2023   Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)