DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2023.
Filed on: 14/09/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO 252/2020
COMPLAINANT
Swannaj. A.K., Angadi Veedu, 15/672B, Pavana Thoosam Road, Valluvally, Konammavu. P.O., Cochin-683518.
(Rep. by Adv. V.A. Pradeep kumar, N. Paravur 683513)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- M/s. One Plus Technology Company Ltd. 46, High Grounds, Sampangi Rama Nagar Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560001, Rep. by its General Manager.
- M/s. Amazon India Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore, 560055, Karnataka, India, Rep.by its General Manager.
(Rep. by Adv. Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, M/s. ATV Legal, Chitrakoot, No. 18, 1st Cross, Kumaracot layout, High Grounds, Bengalure 560001)
- Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., Survey No.38/2,39 and 40, Jadihenahalli Hobli, Karcharakanahalli Village, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka, 562114, Rep.by its General Manager.
- ODIGI Service Ltd., 31/738, B3, Vyloppilly Road, Ponnurunni, Vyttila, Ernakulam, Pin: 682019.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint that the Complainant bought a One Plus 7 T Pro mobile phone from Amazon on 4.7.2020 for Rs.47,999. From the initial purchase, the phone exhibited abnormal heating believed to be due to mechanical defects. Despite multiple visits to the service center (the 4th opposite party), the issue persisted. The service center failed to address the problem, only updating the software and claiming there were no complaints with the phone. Due to these mechanical defects, the complainant cannot use the phone for basic functions. The complainant believes the actions of the parties involved are illegal and against natural justice principles. The complainant demands a replacement or a refund with 18% interest from the purchase date. Moreover, a compensation of Rs.30,000 for mental agony and Rs.10,000 for complaint costs is sought.
2) Notice
The Commission issued notices to the opposite parties, and the second opposite party filed their version. The first and fourth opposite parties did not file their versions, hence they are set ex parte. The notice sent to the third opposite party returned as "left". The complainant has not furnished the correct address of the third opposite party so far.
- THE VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY
The complaint has been lodged against the e-commerce platform www.amazon.in, which is operated by Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (ASSPL). ASSPL clarified that as a corporate entity, individual responsibility cannot be imposed on behalf of the company. ASSPL, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is based in Bangalore and runs www.amazon.in. The complainant has allegedly not exercised due diligence and incorrectly involved Opposite Party No. 2 in the complaint.
In their defense, ASSPL states that they are neither the manufacturer nor the direct seller of the product in question. The product was made by OnePlus Technology Co. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1) and was sold by Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 3). Thus, ASSPL should not be held accountable for the product's alleged defects. They request that the complaint against them be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4) . Evidence
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but presented three documents to the commission:
- A true copy of the bill from the 2nd opposite party dated 4.7.2020.
- A copy of a notice dated 18.7.2020.
- A copy of the reply notice from the 2nd opposite party dated 20.8.2020.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case, the complainant has raised allegations concerning deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties.
The Commission notified the opposite parties. While the second party responded, the first and fourth did not and are therefore set ex parte. The third party's notice was returned marked as "left", with the complainant failing to provide an accurate address for them.
From the beginning, the complainant has been consistently absent. The Commission sent a notice on 12.06.23, urging the complainant to provide the correct address for the third opposite party and to make an appearance. This notice was returned, indicating "addressee left" as confirmed by the Postal Department. The Commission then postponed the case, giving the complainant one final chance to supply the third party's correct address.
The complainant, however, neither provided any supporting affidavit nor made an appearance, despite the multiple opportunities extended. Given the complainant's consistent absence and no proof affidavit filed, the Commission finds it necessary to conclude the complaint using the information at hand. Thus, the Commission is moving ahead with the complaint's closure on merit.
Top of Form
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.(In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849)
The legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep.) is highly significant in consumer cases. It stresses the importance of being proactive and diligent in protecting one's rights and interests in legal matters. By actively safeguarding their rights, individuals are more likely to receive legal support compared to those who neglect their responsibilities. In consumer cases, this maxim emphasizes the need for consumers to be vigilant and attentive when facing potential legal issues, ensuring they protect their rights as buyers. However, it is essential to mention that in this specific case, the complainant did not attend any hearings before the commission or submit an affidavit of evidence after filing the complaint.
After careful consideration, the case presented by the complainant is considered to be without merit. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this is the 3rd day of October, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
kp/
Despatch date:
By hand:
by post:
C.C. No. 252/20
Order date: 03/10/2023
