IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                          Tuesday the 7^th day of June, 2022

                                  Filed on 19.2.2021

Present

1. Sri.S.SanthoshKumarBSc.,LL.B  (President )

2.Smt.P.R.Sholy, B.A., LLB (Member)

                                                               In

CC/No.47/2021

between

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

1.       Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-

 1^st opposite party is the  manufacturer as well as supplier of Laser Printers in India.  2^nd opposite party  are sellers in 3^rd opposite party’s  e-commerce website as well as authorized partners, suppliers and distributors of 1^st opposite party. 3^rd opposite party M/s FlipKart  is a well established e –commerce website in India.

2.       On 21/10/2020, the complainant purchased a Ricoh Printer through the 2^nd opposite party’s e-commerce website for his personal use for an amount of Rs.7465/-.   Complainant tried to install the setup disk  provided  with the computer.  When the complainant tried to install the printer’s user application by CD provided within the printer, it was noticed that such CD was expired. The  CD as well as the cartridge ink provided by the 2^nd opposite party with the printer were old and expired.  On the next day  complainant connected the printer with computer and switched on the computer, the  printer emitted electrical discharge.   The printout was shabby and unclear.  Printer emitted electric shocks whenever he tried to take printouts.

3.       Complainant contacted 1^st opposite party’s customer care number and he was asked to forward the copy of invoice  and serial number of the printer and it was forwarded.   1^st opposite party’s help desk replied that such warranty  is expired and they cannot resolve his complaint as per warranty conditions.  Payment was requested to rectify the defect.   The machine was purchased on 21/10/2020 and he is entitled to get the benefit of the warranty till 21/10/2021. The contention of the opposite party that the warranty runs out of date of manufacturing  is highly untenable. The act of the 1^st opposite party in  denying the   free service  within  warranty period amounts to grave deficiency of service.  Complainant has suffered much hardship  and mental agony due to the improper acts of the opposite party and he is entitled for compensation.  Hence the complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 7465/-   towards the cost of the machine and  Rs.5000/- as compensation.

4.       Opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte.  3^rd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting  as follows:-

 In the complaint allegations are raised against the manufacturer and this opposite party was  wrongly impleaded. This opposite party acts as on online intermediary and the complaint is not  maintainable  against this opposite party.  It is stated in the complaint that the product purchased by him had manufacturing defects and so this opposite party is not liable. 

5.       The grievance of the complainant  pertains to denial of after sale services by the manufacturer under warranty.  This opposite party never came in possession of  either the actually ordered product or the alleged defective product at any point of time.   It is pertinent to note that  it is the seller of the product that provides 10 days replacement policy in addition to the manufacturer’s warranty wherein buyers can claim replacement of the product  if the product qualifies the quality check test arranged by the  seller from the expert technicians.  The product is found defective within the said 10 days the seller provides  replacement to the buyer.  Complainant had not contacted the 1^st opposite party within the time frame. There is no particular grievance against this opposite party.  This opposite partyis  engaged   among others in providing  trading/selling facility  over the internet through its website.   It actsas  an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent 3^rd party sellers and  independent customers. This opposite part is not answerable for any manufacturing defect of the product. There is no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed.

6.       On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1.Whether there is any  deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.7465/-  towards the cost of the printer.

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation?

4. Reliefs and costs?

7.       Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of  PW1 and  Ext.A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant.  Opposite party did not adduce  any evidence either oral or documentary. 

8.       Point No.1 to 3:-

PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 and A2.

9.       As per Ext.A1 bill on 14/10/2020 Pw1, the complainant purchased a Ricoh printer for Rs.7465/-. It was having a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase.  It was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s Ricoh India Ltd and 2^nd opposite party M/s Brindal Enterprises is the dealer and the 3^rd opposite party is the platform M/s Flipkart internet Pvt. Ltd through whom the printer was purchased.  While he was using the same  there was electric shock from the printer and the printouts were not legible and not clear.  The matter was informed to the  1^st opposite party through their customer care number. PW1 was asked to forward a copy of invoice and serial number of the machine.  However the help desk of the 1^st opposite party replied that  since the warranty is expired  they cannot resolve the complaint as per warranty conditions and they demanded money for curing the defect.  Aggrieved by the  same the complaint is filed  for giving direction to the opposite party to return Rs. 7465/- being the  cost of the machine and Rs. 5000/- as compensation.  1^stand  2^nd opposite parties remained exparte.  3^rd opposite party M/s Flipkart filed a detailed version contenting that they are not liable and that they are unnecessary party in the complaint.    In a nutshell they contended that they are only  a platform  in other words an intermediary and the transaction is between customer and the seller.   Hence they contended that the complainant  against  them is not maintainable  and so it is only to be dismissed.  Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 bill and Ext.A2 warranty. From Ext.A2 it is seen that PW1 purchased  the printer on 14/10/2020 through the 3^rd opposite party M/s Flipkart for Rs.7465/-. Ext.A1 contains the authorized signature of 2^nd opposite party M/s Mrinal enterprises.  The description of the products that it is richosp printer. Ext.A2 is the warranty  issued by the 1^st opposite party from which it is revealed that “The warranty shall be for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase”.  Since Ext.A1 bill is dtd. 14/10/2020 the product is having a  warranty for one year ie, up to 13/10/2021.   The date of purchase shown in the complaint as well as in the  chief affidavit is dtd.21/10/2020 that may be the date of delivery.  However Ext.A1 bill it is clear that the date is 14/10/2020.  In the complaint as well as in the chief affidavit it is stated that the one year warranty is upto 21/11/2021  which is also not correct.  Warranty of one year calculated  from 14/10/2020 ie, from the date of Ext.A1 bill will be upto 13/10/2020.  According to PW1 when he tried to use the printer there was electric shock and the  copies were not legible.  Hence he was unable to use the printer. Hence according to him he sustained mental agony.  As stated earlier opposite party 1 and 2 remained exparte and the  learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd opposite party cross  examined PW1.   The cross examination is to the tune that  the prints became  illegible due to the poor quality of ink. PW1 stated that he has used other printers earlier also   so he is familiar with using the printer.  Though PW1 was cross examined at length nothing was brought out his  testimony.  It is to be noted that  though 3^rd opposite party filed  a version running in to  several pages did not enter the witness box to prove their case on oath.  As held by the  Hon’bleSurpeme Court in AIR 1999 SC 1441(VidhyadharVsManikrao)

 “WHERE a party to the suit does not appear into the  witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”

10.     Relying  upon the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.A1 and A2 documents the  learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that  the complaint is proved as per law and so the complainant  is  entitled for the relief sought  in the complaint.  It is noticed that  PW1 is an octogenarian  and is a pensioner. He  purchased the product for his personal use.  As per Ext.A1 bill it can be seen that he had spend an amount of Rs. 7465/-  for purchasing the printer.   If a person is purchasing a product is expecting  good quality and service. It is to be noted that the product is manufactured by  1^st opposite party M/s Ricoh India Ltd. Here  the experience of PW1 became adverse and  he could not use the product.   It is contended in the complaint as well as in the chief affidavit that  when contacted 1^st opposite party over their toll free number the customer care personal requested  to send the copy of bill.  However after verifying the bill they informed that the period of warranty expired and so PW1 has to pay for the repairs.   The complaint is seen filed on 19/2/2021. As stated earlier  Ext.A1 bill is dtd. 14/10/2020   from Ext.A2 warranty card  the product is having a  warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase.  So the  warranty is upto 13/10/2021.  Since the complaint is filed on 19/2/2021 it is not known why the 1^st opposite party informed that the warranty period already expired.  Further 1^st opposite party though received notice from the complaint  referred to remain exparte.

11.     The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd opposite party contented that   they are only an intermediary and the dealings is between the manufacturer  and the customer/dealer. It was pointed out that  being an intermediary they are not liable to  compensate the complainant.  Sec. 2.34 of the Consumer Protection Act.2019  defines “ Product liability” as follows:-

“ Product  liability” means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective  product manufactured or sold or by a deficiency in services relating thereto;”

12.    So it can be seen that   the manufacturer or a seller are equally liable to  compensate the consumer. It  is true that here in this case 3^rd opposite party is M/s Flipkart which  is an online platform in  purchasing articles and they are not liable  it was argued.  Such a contention was considered by the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission U.T.Chandigarh   in Amazon seller Services Pvt. Ltd  vs. Gopal Krishnan on 17/2/2017  and held as follows:-

“Contention of Counsel for the appellant that as per terms and conditions of sale, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant, is liable to be rejected.   An agent, who sells a product, is duty bound to ensure its quality, and if the product is found defective, agent shall be vicariously liable for the loss caused to the purchaser, along with the manufacturer of the product.  It was so held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Emerging  India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd &Anr. Vs. Kamer Chand and Anr. Revision Petition  No. 765 of 2016 decided on 30/3/2016.”

13.   The same view was reiterated  by the Hon’ble SCDRC, U.T.Chandigarh in  Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Dinesh  on 16/2/2018.

14.    Hence  in the light of the decision referred above  the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd opposite party that   being an intermediary 3^rd opposite party is not liable to compensate is unsustainable. 

15.  To sum up as per Ext.A1 bill the product was purchased on 14/10/2020 and as per Ext.A2 it is having a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase.  PW1 contended that the product is defective and though he contacted 1^st opposite party they denied the claim on a contention the  warranty period expired which appears to be incorrect.  Hence complainant is entitled  for the reliefs as prayed for.  These points are found infavour of the complainant.

16.     Point No. 4.

In the result  complaint is allowed.

a) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 7,465/- along with interest @9% from the date of complaint ie, on 19/2/2021 till realization from the opposite  parties jointly and severally.

b) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation from opposite parties jointly and severally.

c) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost from the opposite parties jointly and severally.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 7^th  day of June, 2022.          

                                                                 Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)

                          Sd/-Smt.Sholy.P.R(Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                      -  P.M.Joseph (Complainant)

Ext.A1                -   Billof Mrunal Enterprises.

Ext.A2                -   Warranty Card.

Evidence of the opposite parties:-             

•  NIL  -

///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Comp.by: