D.O.F : 30/06/2023
D.O.O : 31/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.196/2023
Dated this, the 31st day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Pradeep P
Jio Supervisor,
Chicken Park Building
Karanthakkad
Kasaragod – 671121. : Complainant
And
- Bolt Audio
Bolt Sports Technologies
D 159, sector 47, D 159
Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
- Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd
Buildings Alyssa, Begonia &Clove
Embassy Tech village
Bengaluru – 560103.
- Firebolt Technoloties Private
Limited is at 113,
Maker chambers III, 11th Floor
Nariman Point
Mumbai, Mumbai City
Maharashtra. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that, he purchased a Fire-Bolt Talk Bluetooth Calling Smartwatch from opposite party on 17/12/2022 for Rs. 1,804/-. The complainant received the product through courier on 23/12/2022. He used the aforesaid product for 1 month. Thereafter it is not functioning. The complainant registered a complaint in the customer care of Flipkart. But they refused the same by telling that the complaints should be register directly in the company. So the complainant returned the product. Thereafter opposite party send a letter through mail telling to solve the issue. Thereafter also, they send letters but not cured the defects or replaced it. At last, the opposite party informed that the defect is not repairable and they will issue a coupon to purchase any product from the company. But so far it is not given. Only 15 minutes is necessary to generate a coupon, but the opposite party simply cheated the complainant by seeking further time. In the bill it is stated that warranty is available even in case of manufacturing defect. Therefore the complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and seeking a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss and mental agony undergone by him due to the unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
Notice of opposite party No. 1 and 2 returned stating left. Notice served to opposite party No. 3, but remained absent, name called absent.
Thereafter the complainant filed the fresh address of opposite party and notice issued, but all opposite parties were absent and opposite parties set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all issues can be discussed together. The grievance of the complainant is that, the Fire Bolt Talk Bluetooth Calling smartwatch, purchased from opposite party No. 2 is not functioning after 1 month of purchase and when it is informed to opposite parties, they neither cured the defects, nor replaced the product, but simply send 2 letters through mail informing that they will cure the defects. The complainant was continuously contacting opposite parties and at last they offered to generate a coupon so that the complainant can purchase good quality product from the company. But it was not done so far. At last they informed that the product is having manufacturing defect. But it is assured in the bill that even in case of manufacturing defect also, warranty is applicable. But the opposite parties are simply dragging the matter. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation from opposite parties.
The complainant had produced tax invoice of purchase, which is marked as Ext. A1, Ext. A2 is the mail communication between complainant and opposite parties and Ext. A3 is the mail send by opposite party offering to generate coupon. Ext. A1 to A3 proves that the complainant is being cheated by purchasing the product from opposite parties and Ext. A3 is a clear proof for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss and agony undergone by the complainant.
The complainant is seeking Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss and hardships undergone by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. But he has not submitted any evidence for such a huge loss. It is true that the complainant had undergone loss and hardships due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence considering the circumstances of the case, we holds that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing all opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Tax invoice
A2 – Email communications
A3 – Mail send by opposite party
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
