STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
27 of 2017
Date of Institution
Date of Decision
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Registered office at Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore 560055, India, through its authorized signatory Shri Rahul Sundaram.
V e r s u s
- Gopal Krishan son of Sh. Shyam Lal, resident of H. No.2015, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
- Xiomi Technology India Pvt. LTd. (Xiomi India) by rising stars mobile India Pvt. Ltd. 380-Belerica Road, Siri City, Siddam Agra-Haram Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor, District Andhra Pradesh 517541 through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.
- Xiomi India c/o Lkeva Business Centre 8th floor, Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli-Sarjapur outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103 through its proprietor/Managing Director/ Manager.
- Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38&39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli-Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore 560067, Karnatka through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.
- Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., S-405, L Ground floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 Delhi through its proprietor/Managing Director/ Manager.
- Xiaomi Exclusive- Chandigarh, Shop NO. SCO-2471-72, 1st floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 20.12.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.570/2016..
Argued by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Opposite Party No.6 has filed this appeal against order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant.
2. As per facts on record, through a web domain(online portal) owned, managed and controlled by the appellant, respondent No.1/complainant purchased a mobile handset Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 on 11.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.9998/-. Copy of the bill has been placed on record as Annexure C-1. Payment was also made through online. The handset was found defective as it was not working properly. It was handed over to OP No.1 for repair on 4.7.2016. As per job card, it was to be returned on 19.7.2016. Standby handset was not provided. When nothing was done by OP No.5, complainant again contacted the appellant – OP NO.6 online. He was told to get ‘dead on arrival report’. However, the Customer Care Executive of Xiomi Company- OP No.1/Respondent No.2 refused to provide any such certificate. When mobile handset was not given after repair, and no satisfactory reply was given, the complainant/respondent No.1 sent a legal notice on 25.7.2016. However, he failed to get any positive response. By alleging deficiency in providing service, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum on 8.8.2016 claiming refund of the amount paid, compensation for mental and physical harassment and amount towards legal expenses.
3. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply admitted that the mobile handset was received for repair on 4.7.2016. It was further said that after repair, when intimation was sent to the complainant to collect the mobile handset, he refused to do so.
OP No.5 admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was said that when mobile handset was repaired, it was not received by the complainant.
Appellant/OP NO.6 in its defence, as noted by the Forum, said as under ;
“OP No.6 in its reply stated that the it neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their product for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does the answering OP intervene or influence any customers in any manner. It has been admitted that the answering OP advised the complainant to get issued DOA for the product which would in turn enable the return of the product. It is further asserted that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and requested that the complaint be dismissed against it.”
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the replies filed. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting following relief to respondent No.1/complainant ;
a] To refund Rs.9,998/- being the cost of the mobile handset;
b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
c] To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. Contention of the appellant that it cannot be burdened with liability, was rejected by the Forum, by noting that the mobile handset was purchased through the appellant, in online transaction. It was bounden duty of the facilitator to ensure that goods sold through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If the goods purchased through online are found not up to the mark, online portal through which goods were purchased, cannot escape its liability. It is also on record that immediately when defect was noticed, the complainant sent intimation to the appellant. The appellant advised him to get ‘dead on arrival report’ which was not given by the Customer Care Executive of other OP. It was also noted by the Forum that there were major defects in the mobile handset. Its motherboard was defective. To say so, following passage from the affidavit filed by the Deputy Manager (Legal) HCL Services Ltd. has been reproduced by the Forum in the order under challenge ;
“ Upon inspection found on 4.7.2016 that there was a motherboard issue with the mobile handset which required replacement of the said part only, thereinafter a requisition was sent to OP No.1&2 for providing the part in question; which were finally received from OP No.1&2 only on 23.8.2016, and thereafter within a period of 01 day the mobile was repaired and the complainant was intimated to collect the same from the premises of the OP No.2 on/around 24.8.2016.”
6. It is proved on record that the complainant, after repair of the mobile handset, was intimated to collect it on/around 20.8.2016. However, before that date, he had already filed a consumer complaint when he failed to get any reply from the OPs.
When granting relief to the complainant, the Forum has observed as under ;
“Obviously the OPs have received the telephone on 4.7.2016 and repaired it on 24.8.2016. The inordinate delay on the part of the OPs in repairing of the telephone tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has been deprived of service of his mobile handset for which he has already paid. The OPs cannot be permitted to hold the complainant at ransom by their callous attitude in attending the problem of consumer. It is further found that the motherboard, which is the back-bone of the mobile handset in question has been replaced by the OPs after finding it defective. Under these circumstances, it proves beyond doubt that the mobile handset, which the complainant had purchased, was having manufacturing defect on the date of its purchase.”
7. We are satisfied with the reasoning given by the Forum to allow the complaint. It is on record that the mobile handset, after purchase, was received on 4.7.2016. When it was found defective, it was handed over for repair. Despite intimation given here and there and handing over the mobile handset for repair, when the complainant failed to get any positive response, he lost faith in OPs and filed a consumer complaint. The service rendered was absolutely poor and pathetic. Standby handset for use was not given.
8. 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, alongwith 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 & Anr. Revision Petition No.765 of 2016 decided on 30.3.2016.
9. Counsel for the appellant failed to show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order under challenge.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
11. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.