CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.490/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th June, 2020

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

                        3) Smt.C. Renukamba.,

                                                B.A., LL.B., - MWMBER

SrSri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

MMember

1. The Complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the CP Act 1986, against the opposite parties alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and seeking a relief of replacement of his damaged “One plus 6” Mobile handset and to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- for causing inconvenience mental agony together with cost of the litigation and other reliefs.
2. The complainant has purchased a mobile handset from the 2^nd opposite party through 3^rd opposite party. 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile handset. The 2^nd opposite party is the seller and has made use of the platform provided by the 3^rd opposite party, who is an online operating company throughout the country.
3. The complainant  placed an order for  “One plus 6” (Mirror Black, 8 GB  RAM + 128 GB Memory) mobile phone through 3^rd  opposite party valued at Rs. 39,999/- on 15.07.2018. The mobile phone was delivered within a week. The said mobile phone started malfunctioning. The authorized service centre i.e., M/s Mobitech creations pvt. Limited, Koramangala, Bengaluru on 25.09.2019 has sent on estimation for replacement of the main board and other parts for a sum of Rs. 21,875/- and also informed that the same cannot be done free of cost.
4. Aggrieved with the reply by the service center the complainant alleging the manufacturing defect in the mobile phone got issued a legal notice on 14.10.2019 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone free of cost and to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental agony in convenience with cost and other reliefs.
5. The 3^rd opposite party replied the notice on 21.10.2019 denying to replace the mobile phone free of cost and to pay the damages. Further informed that, it is just providing a platform to the 3^rd party seller to sell their products online. Hence they are not liable to pay any damages. As such the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties and seeking reliefs.
6. Despite the service of notice the opposite parties 1 to 3 have remained absent. Hence placed exparte.
7. The complainant lead his evidence by filing examination in chief by way of affidavit and relied on several documents. Written arguments filed and the counsel for complainant addressed the arguments. Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.

8. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

9.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the Negative

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10.        Point No.1:- The complainant’s “One Plus 6”( Mirror Black 8 GB RAM + 128 GB memory) mobile phone, purchased on 15.07.2018 for a sum of Rs. 39,999/- from the opposite parties started malfunctioning. After the lapse of warranty period. The complainant had requested the opposite parties to repair the defects free of cost. But the authorised mobile service centre has demanded a total sum of Rs. 21,875/- on 25.09.2019, towards replacement of main board and other parts. Which was denied by the complainant and alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite parties and sought for the reliefs.

11. The opposite party no.3 has replied the legal notice on 21.10.2019 that it is an online market place/ e-commerce website, which neither sells nor offers to sell any product, except providing platform to sell the third party products. As such, denied their liability.

12. Considering the material evidence and the contention of the complainant counsel the mobile phone was functioning satisfactorily without any problems for more than a year. Subsequently the mobile phone started malfunctioning after the expiry of the warranty period. The authorised service centre duly inspecting the mobile phone, had offered to remove the defects in the mobile phone by replacing the defective/damaged spare parts at a cost of Rs.21,875/-. However the complainant refused to pay and demanded for free replacement of spare parts or a new mobile phone.

13. Further, the 3^rd opposite party in their reply to the notice clearly informed about their obligations in selling the mobile phone to the complainant. As such the complainant failed to establish the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Hence the point no.1 is answered in the negative.

14. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussion the complaint filed by Sri.Anup S Nettar deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 19^th June, 202020)