IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of September, 2024
Filed on: 07.03.2024
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No. 336/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Parties:- |
Akhilraj.T.P 1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd
Thekkeputhukkadu Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove
Kalavamkodam,Cherthala Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road,
Alappuzha Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru
Karnataka-560103
2. Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd, L-169
13th Cross, 5th Main, Sector-6, HSR Layout
Banglore, Karnataka-560102
3 Realme Mobile Telecommunications, 3rd Floor Tower B, Building Number 8, CLF Cyber City
Gurugram-122002, Haryana (All Ops are exparte)
ORDER
SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. The case of the complainant’s case is that:-
The complainant purchased a TV (Realme 108 cm (43 inch) Full HD LED Smart Android TV) from Flipkart on 24/10/2020 along with complete TV Protection (3 years) from Jeeves Consumer Services Private Limited. The TV had some issues in June 2021 and the complainant contacted realme through email and phone, they send Jeeves team to his home and replaced the TV. But they did not provide any invoice or proof of replacement. Now in June 2023 the TV got damaged again and the complainant contacted Jeeves to repair his TV under the protection plan. The technician visited his home and denied the service because of the serial number change.
Further he contacted realme and they said that they have no records of TV replacement and have contacted Flipkart then the team agreed to return the TV and approved refund 70% of the invoice amount. Flipkart team uninstalled the TV and packed it. After more than 3 months of calling and arguments they finally cancelled the refund process. Hence filed this complaint and sought the following reliefs.
(a) Direct the opposite parties to pay the amount the purchase price of the TV Rs. 18,999/- and to refund Rs. 1499/-, the amount for the extended warranty package.
(b) Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as a compensation for not liable to use the Tv for the time being and physical and mental strain suffered by the complainant due to the repetitive rejection from the customer service team of the opposite parties and costs of the proceedings.
2. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought in the complaint?
2. Reliefs and costs ?
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext A1, A2 series to A4 were marked. The opposite parties remained absent and hence proceeded with exparte. Heard the complainant .
4. Point No.1:-
Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice dt.24.10.2020 of the disputed TV. The complainant purchased the TV for an amount of Rs.18999/-. The product has a one-year domestic warranty and a 2-year on-panel warranty. It seems that the product was manufactured by the 3rd op, the first op supplied the product through their online platform and accordingly issued A1. Along with A1, another Tax Invoice dated 27.10.2020 was issued by the 2nd op after receiving installation and Demo charges of Rs.500/-. Further Tax Invoice dt.18.10. 2020 issued by the 2nd op after receiving Rs. 1499/-, which indicates that said amount received and provided for complete TV Protection for 3 years. Therefore, said protection is provided from the date of order of the product itself. It is pleaded that during the warranty period, in June 2021, the product showed defects, and the same was replaced by the 2nd op as per the instruction of the 3rd op. But did not issue any invoice or proof of replacement. Further, the replaced TV got damaged in June 2023, the complainant contacted the 2nd op to repair his TV under the protection plan. However, they denied the service because of the difference in serial numbers of the products. It seems that the 3rd op has no records of replacement. Further contacted the 1st op even though they agreed to refund 70% of the invoice amount thereafter cancelling the refund process.
As observed from the complaint and Ext.A2 it is clear that the 2nd op is acting under the instructions of both 1st and 3rd opposite parties. In the aforementioned circumstances, it is quite clear that the 1st op was aware of the product replacement. Therefore the 1st op's inaction in revising the product serial number in the complainant 's complete TV protection plan amounts to service deficiency. Therefore it is observed that the first opposite party has breached their obligations under the complete TV protection plan that has been purchased by the complaint. Moreover, the allegations in the complaint remained unchallenged since all the opposite parties remained absent after receiving notice from this Commission. The said behaviour of the opposite parties indicated that they have no consistent case than the allegations of the complainant . As discussed earlier, the first op committed deficiency in service and hence, we have exonerated opposite parties 2&3 from the liability. The Commission further notes 20% depreciation over the term of 2 years of the complainant's usage of the product. Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of the purchase amount of the product, from the 1st opposite party after deducting said depreciation. Moreover, the 1st opposite party is liable to refund the amount received for complete TV protection plan. Since it is found that they did not provide any service as agreed.
2. Point. No.2:-
In the result, the complaint stands allowed in part as follows:-
1. The first opposite party is directed to refund the complainant a depreciated amount of Rs.15,201/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand two hundred and one only ), failure upon which the said amount shall accrue an interest of 9% per annum from the date of complaint to the date of realization.
2. The 1st opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1499/- to the complainant.
3. The first opposite party is directed to pay the complainant Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only ) as compensation for deficiency services.
4. The first opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs. 1000/-( Rupees One thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission this the 30th day of September, 2024.
Sd/- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.(Member)
Sd/-Smt.P.R Sholy (President-In-Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice 24/10/2020
Ext.A2 series - Flipkart messages
Ext.A3 - Photographs
Ext.A4 - CD drive
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
