ORDER

SMT.NANDINI.H.KUMBHAR, MEMBER

1. The Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 against the OPs alleging deficiency of service directing the  OPs to refund a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- and direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss  and also direct the OPs to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- and such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

       This is the case of the complainant that  on 01.07.2022 the complainant has purchased LG G1OLED TV for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- from Amazon India vide order No.406-7243527-8072347 and TV delivered on 02.07.2022 and same was installed on 04.07.2022. The complainant submits that on 10.07.2022 the complainant faced some intermittent issued with the said TV panel/images  and on 11.07.2022 the complainant informed the issue to the LG Technician, but he  had not made further initiation from his end. The complainant submits that on 12.07.2022, the TV stopped working entirely  and the complainant contacted the Amazon customer care and they have agreed to replacement or refund at that time and than on 13.07.2022 the LG Technician  found the panel issue after thorough verification and updated the same on the job sheet to provide a replacement and communicated the update to the Amazon customer care and the Amazon customer care requested the complainant for 03 working days before the service request is updated on their patrol. The complainant on 15^th & 17^th July 2022 contacted Amazon support and the job sheet was shared and return was accepted and again the seller contacted the complainant and informed him that a return was not possible and refused to co-operate. After repeated interactions the customer care informed the complainant to self-ship the TV back to the seller as per the return instructions, subsequently on 21.07.2022 the TV picked up and updated Docket ID back to Amazon support for tracking process. On 25.07.2022, the TV was delivered back to the Seller i.e. OP-1  and mentioned in the invoice and informed the complainant has informed the same to Amazon customer care and as per Amazon customer care team,   refund was to be initiated within 24 to 48 hrs which never happened.   On 27.07.202 after two days the complainant contacted customer care and told that the seller is refuting PD via Amazon message and the Gati team has confirmed that OP-1 has received the product, but they are not providing the seal on the POD despite of repeated attempts.  The complainant personally visited the OP-3 office on 13.08.2022, but they told there is a seal, but it is not visible and he promised to rectify the issue and the Gati daily proving one or the other reasons that the seller is unavailable. On 01.09.2022 the complainant received mail from Gati Team with POD+Pan card copy of the person who has collected the delivery at OP-1 and he is not providing a seal even after repeated request to provide, but verbally agreeing to Gati that he has collected the product and OP-1 is still denying that the seal and proper signature on the POD is missing on Amazon portal.  The complainant submits that after repeated requests on 05.09.2022 OP-3 confirmed that no further progress can be made from their end and OP-1 is refusing to provide a seal on the POD at the invoice address of the product delivered.  Due to the act of the OPs, the complainant sent requisition on 24.09.2022 and also legal notice on 14.11.2022 calling upon them to refund a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- along with compensation, but  the OPs have not replied to the notices.  Aggrieved by the act of OPd, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking  relief as prayed in the complaint.

3.  Notice to the OPs duly served, OP-1to 3 remained absent and they have been placed ex-parte. OP-4  represented by counsel filed written version and affidavit along with relevant documents in support of their defense.

4. Complainant filed chief examination affidavit by re-iterating the complaint allegations and also filed relevant documents in support of their plea.

5.  Heard arguments and matter is reserved for orders.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is  entitled for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1           :       Partly in Affirmative

Point No.2           :       As per final order.

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:-  The OP-4 represented by counsel  filed their written version, wherein they denied entire complaint allegations as against them and also denied any deficiency of service on their part. The OP-4 submits that, the complainant had made all the allegations as against OP-1 to3 and OP-4 as a manufacturer  and the complainant has not sought any relief against this OP.  As per averments of the complaint, the complainant has been returned defective TV in question to the OP-1, as per guidelines  to process the refund from OP-2 and the OP-1 is not confirming the receipt of the defective TV in question and is not co-operating  in the matter resolving the request. The averments  of the complainant and OP-1 to 3 are not within the knowledge of this OP. The OP-4 is neither proper nor necessary party to the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

10. The complainant filed chief examination affidavit by reproducing the entire complaint allegations as against OPs and also produced relevant documents in support of their case. On perusal of the complaint, the complainant has purchased a LG G1 OLED TV on 01.07.2022 for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- from Amazon which was delivered on 02.07.2022 and installed on 04.07.2022. After installation within  a 6 to 8 days of installation the complainant had facing issue with the TV panel/images, when the complainant has reported the issue with LG Technician and since the issue was intermitted  again on 12^th July, the TV panel stopped working entire. When the complainant contacted  Amazon  customer care, they have agreed to provide a replacement or refund. After thorough verification from LG Technician provide replacement and communicated the update with Amazon/OP-2, but after multiple interactions the OP-2/Amazon customer care informed the complainant to self ship the TV back to the seller as per instructions. As the TV delivered back to the OP-1 from OP-3, as mentioned invoice  by the OP-2 that the refund was to be initiated within 24 hours to 48 hours, which never turned back. Despite of repeated requests from the complainant to OPs, denied  stating POD still OPs does not have a seal signature from the OP-3.  It is crystal clear that the transaction between the complainant and the OPs with respect to the purchase of said TV is on 01.07.2022 for a payment of Rs.2,60,000/-, the copy of transaction, payment and purchase of said TV  by the complainant from the OP is not at all disputed. The only dispute between the parties is that only after 6 to 8 days of installation of said OLED TV the complainant faced  some intermittent  issue with the TV panel/images. When it was brought to the notice of the OP company, they have admitted the fact and initially OP-2 have informed the complainant to refund was to be initiated  within 24 to 48 hours. After receiving requisition letter and legal notice, the OPs  have not replied nor refunded the amount. It is crystal clear from the events that  the conduct of the OP attracts deficiency in service, for which the OPs are held liable to refund the amount.

11. From perusal of all the documents marked as Annexure A to R and the contention taken by the OP-4 who is the Manufacturer and the allegations of the complainant as against defective/issue with the LED TV in question as the manufacturer i.e.OP-4 is also held liable as per provisions C.P.Act-2019. The responsibility of product  manufacturer or product seller or service provider to compensate for any harm caused to a customer by a defective product manufactured  or sold or by deficiency in service  in relation to the product. As per contention of OP-4, the OP-1 to 3 as seller and service provider and the manufacture liable for first delivery of defect TV and subsequently failed to repair it or refund the amount as admitted by the OP-2 in their email conversation with the complainant as marked as Annexure-I & J dt.26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022. The contention of the OP on the said fact, it appears that, the OP-4 by way of this defence has tried to escape from the probable liability that may be casted upon the OP-4. When such being the case, the contention of OP-4 cannot be accepted, what is the mechanical issue which is found the said LED TV and technical issue as it is arises well within a warranty period and the OP-2 also escalated the issue and initiated the refund by sending reply email message to the complainant. Despite of sending email by OP-2 failed to refund the amount to the complainant. It is crystal clear from the OPs attracts deficiency in service, for which the OP-1 to 4 are held liable to refund the value of the LED TV. As per judgment rendered by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, in the absence of any defence from OP-1 to 3 side and non-filing of written version amounts to admission of allegations made by the complainant in the consumer complaint.

12. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of complaint averments and the documents produced by the complainant, the complaint deserves to be allowed on merits and OP-1 to 4  are jointly  and severally held liable to refund the value of the LED TV along with other reliefs. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in partly affirmative.

13. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the forgoing reasons,  we passed the following:

                                      ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The OP-1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to refund the value of LED TV a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of email sent by the OP-2 i.e. 27.07.2022   till entire payment is made to the complainant.
3. The OP-1 to 4  are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering along with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
4. The OPs shall comply this order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the OPs shall liable to pay interest at 6% p.a. on all the above said amounts.
5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 29^th June 2024)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                   (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

              MEMBER                                             MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Manoj Krishnadas-Who being the complainant.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-1 to 3 by way of affidavit:- Nil

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-4 by way of affidavit:-

Sri Prasanna

Documents produced by the OP-1 to 4:  Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                 (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

         MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                       

SKA*