State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Xolo ( Lava ) Manufacturer vs Dr. Makarand Ashok Bapat on 1 October, 2019
1 (A/15/920)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/15/920
Xolo(Lava) Manufacturer
A-6, Sector 64, Noida,
UP 201 301. Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dr.Makarand Ashok Bapat
Near Jain Temple,
Gholwad, Tal.Dahanu,
Dist.Palghar.
2. Mirchmart.com (Seller)
301, 3rd flr, Laxmi Bhavan,
71-72, Nehru Place,
New Delhi 11019. Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Hon'ble Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
PRESENT:
For the
Appellant (s): Advocate Anjali Patil
i/b Rajesh Choudhary
For the
Respondent(s): In person
ORAL ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
[1] Heard. Lava International Ltd. through their authorized signatory filed this appeal on the ground that before passing the impugned order dated 29/10/2014 in consumer complaint No.152 of 2014 learned Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane did not issue notice to the appellant and without hearing appellant impugned order was passed. Therefore, appellant desires an opportunity of hearing.
2 (A/15/920) [2] We find that complaint was lodged against Xolo (Lava) Manufacturer giving its address as 1003/1004, 10th floor, 19D, The Ambeince Court, Opp. R.T.O.Office, Navi Mumbai, Vashi.
[3] Complainant-Dr.Makrand Ashok Bapat had bought Xolo Q800 mobile on 25/03/2013 which he received by courier. According to the complainant opponent had not given any registered postal address on their web site nor customer care number. Complainant had approached Customer Care Centre with the defective mobile device which was promised to be repaired. However, on 16/04/2013 when it was sent back within 8 days same defect was noticed in the device of defective battery. On 25/07/2013 mobile device which was received back was without repairs. Therefore, on 29/07/2013 again complaint was made. On or about 07/01/2014 complainant again sent mobile device to opponent for repairs but it was not received back. As last resort, complainant had approached learned Forum below. It is the case of complainant that despite service upon opponent No.1, opponent No.1 did not file any written version and the complaint proceedings proceeded exparte against opponent No.1. Opponent No.2- 'Mirchimart.com', who were seller of mobile did not appear before the learned Forum below. Even their whereabouts on internet are missing at present. Under these circumstances, learned Forum below held that it was essential for opponents to repair the mobile device and handed it back to the complainant. But though repeatedly it was sent to the opponents, it was not repaired to the satisfaction of complainant nor it was returned back. Thus, learned Forum below held that there was deficiency in service on the part of opponents not to repair the mobile device and not returned it back to the complainant. Thus, holding opponents negligent in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of order.
[4] We find that complainant had ordered the mobile device through 'Mirchimart.com' seller which was manufactured by 'Xolo (Lava)' and the appropriate Award was passed after the learned Forum below recorded 3 (A/15/920) findings against opponents who remained absent, did not file written version in the learned Forum below. It is only when execution proceeding started, appellant 'Xolo(Lava)'decided to challenge the impugned Award through their authorized signatory on the ground that they were not heard. [5] In the facts and circumstances of the case, looking into the nature of transaction which was on the basis of order through the medium of internet to the seller online selling the products of Xolo (Lava) company. The fact that the mobile device was received by the complainant and was found defective and further the fact that the notice of proceeding was served upon the Xolo (Lava) at its Navi Mumbai address available on internet, it cannot be said that appellant (Xolo (Lava)) were not aware of the transaction of selling the device on online, e-marketing through the seller or the dealer. When any Company advertise its product through e-marketing and on-line and mentions its various addresses to the prospective consumers and consumers rely upon the information furnished on the internet or by any article through online, dealer or trader or seller of company who is selling the product would be liable, in case the product is found defective, such product in the present case, which is mobile phone instrument, when bought for valuable sum, ought to be in a good working condition, which any ordinary consumer can use as a satisfied consumer. In case the defect is noticed and informed to the service centre of the company such service center is responsible to carry out the necessary repairs in respect of mobile device and to return it in good repaired condition to the consumer. This legitimate expectation of the consumer is breached in this case and Xolo(Lava) company at its Navi Mumbai address and order was passed in due course by the learned Forum below. Now at the subsequent stage knowing that execution proceeding has began, the effort to question the Award already passed, in our view, ought not be successful. Of-course, the executing Forum may hear the appellant before passing final order in execution to recover or realize the amount awarded from appellant. With 4 (A/15/920) these observations, we dispose of the appeal as dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties. Pronounced on 1st October, 2019.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [DR.S.K.KAKADE] MEMBER rsc