DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.07.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant purchased a product on 05.01.2023 boAt storm Pro call with Bluetooth calling, 1.78” AMOLED Display and ASAP charge Smart watch with an amount of Rs.3199/- from Flipkart with order id-OD326926787203279100 with one year warranty period but the smart watch speaker stopped working. So the complainant registered a complaint to the O.P. on 25.07.2023 after 3 days the O.P. sent a courier partner Xpressbees agent who checked the product for any physical damage before pick up and there was no physical damage that’s why he picked it up but after 10 days on 08.08.2023 the O.P. sent the complainant a test report where the O.P. mentioned that the product was damaged and delivered after this the complainant complained to the O.P. about the smart watch but the O.P. did not listen to the concern and did not even solved. The O.P. miserably failed in providing right and proper service despite the complainant has paid the full amount to the O.P. and thereby causing deficiency in service. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to duly look into this matter with foremost importance to take necessary steps to render the proper service to the complainant and refund Rs. 3,199/-, compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Party.
4. The Opposite Party filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of the Hon’ble Commission and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. On 30.12.2022 the complainant vide order id OD326926787203279100 had purchased 1 boAt storm Pro call with Bluetooth calling, 1.78” AMOLED display and ASAP charge Smart watch. The complainant started facing the issue of ‘Speaker not working’ therefore, raised ticket no-35937599 on 25.07.2023. The said product was delivered to O.P. esskay center on 7th August 2023. Upon evaluation of grievance raised by the complainant the claim for aforesaid ticket number was rejected as products screen as found to be damaged and customer’s original product was delivered back to him with AB no-1300659804624 on 16th August 2023. However, the complainant still insisted that the said product was handed over to the O.P. in a perfect condition. The O.P. once again adopted a result oriented approach and offered a replacement after discussing investigating on his matter with express bees couriers on the basis of the acknowledgement shared by him on the receipt of complainant’s legal notice. Without any application of mind and documentary proof tried to raise the false allegation of “speaker not working”. At the same time if looked carefully on such false allegation of demands, it would be imperative to note herein no document has been placed by the complainant in support of such allegation. The law does not give any remedy to those persons who do not approach the Commission with clean hands. The present complaint deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs as the same is not only false, frivolous and bogus, but also the abuse of process of this Hon’ble Commission and devoid of merits as well. The complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed or for any other relief at all. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing the complainant and advocate for O.P. is present. We heard argument at length. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument, evidence on affidavit and documents available in the case record.
It is apparent from the case record that, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant subsequently that, the product which was returned to them through their courier partner was damaged when received. But the climax of the case stopped at the point when the courier partner of the opposite party picked up the product from the custody of the complainant, what was the condition of said product at that time. It can be clarified only on the pictures taken while picked up by the courier partner. It is confirmed from the document of ‘Xpressbees fulfilling happiness bearing No: AWB No:2385180035810; Client Name: Imagine Marketing; SR Pick up images-4; customer name & Address; issue Category: Issues (customer); Sr.No.1-Product Name:boat Storm Pro Call Charcoal Black-Product ID:1608; collected by: Ansuna Nayak, Dated:28.07.2023 – 09:07:14; is OTP verified: No; which is filed by the complainant. On minutely checked and verified the SR Pick Up Images in said document by using magnifying glass by this Commission, it comes to table that, the product in question was intact and no damages found in said images which was picked up by the courier partner of the OP. And for which the courier partner of the OP has without any protest collected the product from the complainant on the scheduled date and forwarded it to the OP. Further, the complainant has handed over the packaged product as per instruction of the opposite party to the courier. It deems that, the OP has made negligent in settlement of the complaint of the complainant. The complainant has substantiated the case and prove that the opposite party rendered deficient services together with undertaken unfair trade practice.
In consideration of the above discussion, the Commission allowed the complaint of the Complainant on contest against the opposite party. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the cost of the product of Rs.3199/- together with pay Rs.5000/- compensation for deficient services and unfair trade practices along with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum and the complainant is at liberty to recover the said dues from the O.P in accordance to the Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 18.07.2024.
