PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                                 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 125/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Milan Pradhan,

S/O- Balakrishna Pradhan,

R/O- Bindupur, Po-Jamujori, Ps-Naktideul,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768106.

Mob-9090402266                                                   …………........Complainant

Vrs.

1. Motorola Excellence Center,

415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

2. Luminary Lifestyle Private Limited,  Kamrup Metro, Assam, 781005
3. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit No.6/B, 7^th main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034.
4. One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

AST Mile-417, Bussa, Udyog Bhavan, T.J. Road Sewri  West Mumbai, Maharastra-400015.

5. Jeevs Consumer Services Private Limited, L-169, 13^th Cross, 5^th Main, Sector-6, HSR Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka-560102.                          .…...…….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. A. Dash & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Ex-parte
3. For the O.P. No.2 & 3        :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates
4. For the O.P. No.4                           :- Sri. S.K. Naik & Associates.
5. For the O.P. No.5                           :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates

Date of Filing:22.08.2023,  Date of Hearing :30.01.2024,  Date of Judgement :27.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased Motorola Revor-2, 139 cm(55inch) Ultra HD(4K) LED Smart Android TV with Dolby Atmos and Dolby vision online from O.P. NO.3 vide invoice No. FAIOT42300009430 on 29.09.2022 vide order No. OD126128175515974000 from O.P. No.1. The Complainant paid Rs. 29812/-. The O.P. No.2 processed for delivery and installation in the house of Complainant. Complainant further paid Rs. 3499/- for appliance. Protection extended warranty although manufacturing warranty was for one year. O.P. No.4 provided protection warranty for 3 years. The O.P. No.2 delivered the product on 07.10.2022 but installed on 13.10.2022 by O.P. No.5, who is the authorised service centre of O.P. No.1. Installation charge was free at the time of placing order but the company charged Rs. 1000/- installation charges. A TV stand it price was Rs. 200/- but the O.Ps charge Rs. 500/- from the Complainant.

After two months problem started like initially a black line over the display. Four complaints before O.P.s filed. The TV then started blinking continuously. Although it was reported to the O.Ps no body resolved the dispute. Customer service centre was also approached 95 times but no solution made. The O.Ps told to change the PIN Code to provide service from 50Kms away from house of Complainant. The O.Ps denied provide service as O.P. no.5 never gave any service. Whenever any complaint was filed Kanhu Charan Gantayat was assigned the repairing work but the said technician closed the complaints on different grounds and replied who will come to the house of the Complainant for Rs. 200/-.

The TV is now non-functional. Being aggrieved complaint was filed.

2. The O.P. No. 1 manufacturer was set ex-parte.
3. The O.P. No.2, Luminary lifestyle Pvt Ltd. submitted that is a registered seller company under O.P. no.2. The O.P. No.2 is not a manufacturer. Non repair of product covered under the protection plan provided by O.P. No.5 O.P. No.2 has no any role in entire transaction. After delivery of the product the role of O.P. no.2 is over. The Complainant purchased the product from O.P. No.3 online platform and supplied by O.P. No.2 on 29.09.2022. The product was delivered on 07.10.2022. Complainant raised his grievance about defective product on 06.08.2023. The resellers return policy was lapsed and the alleged grievance of the Complainant can only resolved by the manufacturer of the product since, the product was covered under manufacturer’s warranty.

O.P. No.2 is an online reseller. After 10 days of receipt of product, O.P. No.2 has no any role. There is no any deficiency on the part of O.P. No.2.

4. The O.P. No.3 Flipkart interner Pvt. Ltd. in its version submitted that it is an intermediary under the information and Technology Act, 2000, an online market place and under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 exemption has been granted to market place.

The entire allegation is against O.P. No.5, who gave complete protection plan. The O.P. No.5 informed O.P. no.3 that the Complainant not allowed to repair the product without opening the product, which was not possible. The Complainant himself used abusive languages, for which O.P. No.5 unable to inspect the product, which is against the complete protection plan.

5. The O.P. No.5 in reply submitted that the O.P. No.5 is only a service provider of house hold products. The Complainant not allowed the technician to open the product for inspection and blatantly ordered to repair the product without opening. The Complainant used abusive languages and himself denied to get the product repaired. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.5.
6. The O.P. No.4 one Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd. submitted that there is no any deficiency in rendering service. No any cause of action has been disclosed against O.P. No.4. The plan started on 07.10.2022 and continued till 05.10.2025. On 07.08.2023 service request No. SR#21585348 was made by the Complainant. Complaint was closed as the product was under the brand’s warranty period. Tata AIG G.I.C is a necessary and proper party. O.P. No.4 can only provide repair service in case of accident damage during 1^st year of validity of plan and post one year extended warranty services start. This O.P. is not deficient in its service.
7. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. Motorola Revou 2 139 Cm (55inch) Ultra HD(4K) LED Smart Android TV with Dolby Atmos and Dolby vision was purchased vide invoice dated 29.09.2022 for an amount of Rs. 28,912/- from O.P. No.2 online seller in online platform O.P. no.3. Vide invoice dated 13.10.2022 to-wards Motorola Installation and Demo the O.P. no.5 received a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the Complainant, vide invoice dated 29.09.2022 the O.P. No.4 in extended warranty to-wards complete appliance protection received Rs. 3499/- from the Complainant.

Grievance No. 4788728 was given on 05.08.2023 to O.P. no.4. The Company also submitted mail reply about warranty claim.

8. It is the admission of all contesting parties that the Complainant purchased the Motorolla Ultra HD LED Smart TV on 29.09.2022 through online mode. O.P. No.5 is the authorised service centre, who installed the LED TV on 13.10.2022 after receipt of Rs. 1000/- installation charges. The Complainant failed to file any documents to prove that installation charges were free. Village Bindupur under Naktideul Ps is a distant place from Sambalpur Town. Kanhu Chanran Gantayat was assigned the repair work and the Complainant alleged that the technician never attended the repair work due to distance from Sambalpur. It is the admission of O.P. no.4 & 5 that complaints have been made but O.P.No.5 specifically denied that Complainant not allowed the technician to open the LED TV for repairing. This very statement is not acceptable as the O.P. No.5 failed to establish that on which dates he attended the defective product for repairing. It amounts to deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.5, authorised service centre of manufacturer O.P. No.1.

The Complainant could not get his warranty service nor post warranty complete appliance protection service from O.P. no.4 although the product was protected since 29.09.2022. The O.P. No.4 is also deficient in its service.

No doubt there is no any manufacturing defect established by the Complainant but as authorised centre of O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.5 failed to provide service and accordingly the manufacturer can not escape from the post sale service. A Consumer purchase a particular product to get proper service after purchase. The service centre managed by O.P. no.1 failed to do so.

The O.P. NO.2 is the seller and O.P. No.3 is the online plat from. After delivery of the product and use for two months by Complainant, the liability of O.P. No.2 & 3 is over.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the Complaint the following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed partly against O.P. No.1, 4 & 5 and dismissed against O.P. No.2 & 3. The O.P. No.1, 4 & 5 are jointly and severally liable for the deficient service and directed to repair the product to working condition within one month of this order. In case of non-repairing the O.P. No.1 shall liable to replace the product with same brand and same specification new product. For deficiency in service the O.P. No.1, 4 & 5 are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- each.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27^th day of Feb. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.