Juridiction of consumer courts to adjudicate a online purchase
(Querist) 21 February 2009
This query is : Resolved
1) I reside in Chennai (formerly Madras) in Tamilnadu state, India. I had purchased 4 Number of T610 sony ericcson mobiles online from an online Trading firm. 2) The supplier was located in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) in Maharashtra state, India. 3) The mobiles (all the four pieces) had developed series of problems and was sent to the supplier very frequently for service/replacement. The supplier had attended to the defects a number of times and returned. The defects could not be rectified in full and the supplier had finally replaced the mobiles but with some used mobiles available with themselves under the disguise of replacement. 4) The replacement with used mobiles became evident from the checking of the IMEI numbers of the mobiles received. In addition the replaced phones contained messages and Ring tones recorded in hindi(language). 5) When this was brought to the notice of the firm, they agreed immediately to replace all the four phones with fresh(new) pieces. The issue had lasted more than a year and initially the firm had replaced two mobiles. 6) Later when the remaining two phones were sent for replacement, the company initially refused replacement stating that the warranty period of one year had lapsed. Thereafter, when it was pointed out that the issue was agreed to be settled by way of replacement the company took back the balance of two phones but replaced them with some hyundai make korean phones. The phones lacked many of the features available with the T610 sony ericcson mobiles (originally purchased) and it was also verified from the company website that the hyundai make korean phones supplied had a Maximum retail price of Rs.1600 each against the T610 sony ericcson phones which were originally purchased at Rs.4000 each. 7) This was brought to the notice of the firm and the firm once again agreed to take back the Korean mobiles and replace the same with some VK brand PDA phones which costed same as the T610 sony ericcson mobile. The company had also requested ‘not to put into use’ the two Korean phones supplied by them. However, the company had not replaced the phones as agreed and the Korean mobiles were also remaining idle. 8) I had requested the company regularly over phone and also thro’ e-mails initially to send me the replacement and at a later date to return the cost of mobiles together with interest, fearing that any more replacement even if occurred would lack warranty clause from day one of the supply and with the present poor state of affairs I would be left helpless. 9) The company was also sent a show cause notice on the above lines over e-mail and later by speed post threatening consumer action in the consumer courts in chennai the state of tamil nadu. 10) The company had not replied and responded as on date. 11) It is not clear as to which courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate the above case lies, whether the courts in maharastra (Bombay) or chennai (tamilnadu) considering the fact that the purchases were made online? 12) I would be handicapped if I had to put up trial in Bombay since it is located nearly 1400 kms away from my residence in Chennai and cost cannot be borne? 13) Whether the case shall be submitted over post to the consumer forum in Bombay in maharashtra for admission and trial and if the court requires for a physical presence shall I demand travel allowances from the company at that time? 14) I had spent frequently a lot of money towards courier, packing, phone charges etc., for the purpose of despatch of mobiles for repair and replacement
15) Please help to continue on the above case! Thanking everyone in Advance!
sanjay singh thakur
(Expert) 21 February 2009
Dear Raja You file your consumer case in the District Consumer Forum, Chennai. You have a very good case. Please make local Sony Ericcson service centre party to the case.