Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/30

Karan Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart India Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Bansal

16 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        30 of 2021

Date of Institution :  28.01.2021

Date of Decision :    16.05.2022

1. Karan Bansal son of Vinod Kumar Bansal son of Balwant Rai Bansal, resident of House NO.133, Gali No.1, Partap Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through his attorney Vinod Kumar Bansal son of Balwant Rai Bansal resident of House No.133, Gali No. 1, Partap Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Vinod Kumar Bansal son of Balwant Rai Bansal resident of House No.133, Gali No. 1, Partap Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

....Complainants

Versus

1. Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, having its registered office at Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Industrial Layout, Bangalore (Karnataka) through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

cc no.30 of 2021

2. Nokia Corporation, having its registered office at SP Infocity, Indurstrial Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,Dundahera, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt Ltd, having its registerd office at L-169, 13^th Cross, 5^th Main, Sector -6, HSR Layout, Bangalore (Karnataka) through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
4. Omni Tech Retail India Ltd. Having its registered office at Block E, Mangolpuri S Block, New Delhi - 110083 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
5. Consulting Rooms Private Limited having its registerd office no. 1106-1107, 11^th Floor, Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                                      ..............OPs

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum: Sh Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President,

                Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for Complainants,

             OP-1, 2, 3, and 5 Exparte,

             OP-4 deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 09.11.2021

cc no.30 of 2021

ORDER

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President)

                                          Complainant Karan Bansal through power of attorney Vinod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ before this Commission against Flipkart India Pvt Ltd and another (hereinafter referred as Opposite parties).

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on  01.02.2020, complainant placed an order for purchase of Nokia 139 cm 55 inch Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV from OP-1 against gross price of Rs.41,999/-. OP-1 gave discount of Rs. 3,445/- that included discount of Rs.2,945/- under No Cost EMI Program Discount qua the amount which were borne by the complainant as credit card charges at the time of placing the order. OP-1 also provided Complete TV Protection Plan of 3 years through its subsidiary associate OP-3 against any issue occurring in three years in LED TV including both manufacturing defects and accidental damages and charged a sum of Rs.2,999/-from complainant for this Protection Plan and in this way, complainant paid total amount of Rs.41,053/-for said LED. Said product is manufactured by OP-2 and it was sold by OP-1in collaboration with other OPs.

cc no.30 of 2021

3                                               It is alleged that said LED carried warranty of one year which was duly extended to three years under Complete TV Protection Plan and at the time of purchase, OPs assured to provide services at door step.  After delivery of said LED at his residence, it was being used by complainant but in first week of December, 2020, there occurred some defect in said LED TV and a big black spot was coming on screen regarding which complainant made complaint to OP-3. On his complaint, OP-3 sent Gurdeep Singh from Ferozepur, who after checking said that there is some technical issue in LED that cannot be repaired and told complainant to ask for refund or replacement, but OP-3 with malafide intention sent a wrong message that repair of LED was successfully completed.

4                                         The complainant alleged that he made several complaints to OP-1 and 2 but all in vain.  After that complainant got registered his grievance against OPs on consumer support portal on the official website of Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution and then, complaint which was earlier closed by Ops, was reopened again and then, there had been online chat between complainant no.1 and representative of OP-1 about defect in said LED.

cc no.30 of 2021

 

Complainant sent required documents to OPs on their demand. OPs admitted about defect in said LED and offered to refund 70% of product value, but  complainant asked for full refund and thereafter, OPs sent message that “We are processing your refund request. Watch this section for updates. Refund of Rs.38,054/- will be added to your original payment mode within 4 business days”, but OPs refused to make refund by sending message that “ We are sorry. We are unable to process you refund request”. This act of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service.

5                                            On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions OPs to replace the said LED TV with new one or to refund the cost price of same and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-  for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

6                                      Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite parties No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 despite service through RC, as such, exparte proceedings

 

 

cc no.30 of 2021

were taken against them. Vide order dated 09.11.2021, name of OP-4 was deleted from the array of OPs on statement of counsel for complainant.

 

7                                    As there is no rebuttal from OPs side therefore, ld counsel for complainant was given proper opportunity to lead evidence. Ld   counsel for complainant tendered in exparte evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-16 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                            We have heard the exparte arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have very carefully gone through and perused the affidavits & documents placed on the record file.

9                                           From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant, it is observed that complainant purchased through online mode from OP-1 one Nokia 139 cm 55 inch Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV manufactured by OP-2 for Rs.38,054/-. OP-1 also provided Complete TV Protection Plan of 3 years through its subsidiary associate OP-3 against any fault occurring in three years in LED TV both manufacturing defects and accidental damages and charged a sum of Rs.2,999/-for this Protection Plan. Total price paid by complainant was

 

cc no.30 of 2021

Rs.41,053/-for said LED. Said product is manufactured by OP-2 and it was sold by OP-1in collaboration with other OPs. Grievance of the complainant is that in December, 2020, due to some defect in said LED TV a big black spot started appearing on screen regarding. On complaint by complainant, OP-3 sent a technician, who after checking said that there is some technical issue in LED that cannot be repaired and told complainant to ask for refund or replacement, but OP-3 with malafide intention sent a wrong message that repair of LED was successfully completed. Thereafter, complainant made several complaints to OP-1 and 2 but all in vain.  After that made complaint on government website and then, his complaint was reopened by OPs. They admitted about defect in LED and offered 70% refund for LED and thereafter, OPs agreed to make full refund of Rs.38,054/- and said that refund would be added to his original payment mode within 4 business days and duly sent message regarding this to complainant, but thereafter, refused to make refund saying they are unable to process his refund request. All this amounts to deficiency in service. On the contrary, there is nothing on record on the side of OPs.

10                                             To prove his pleadings complainant counsel has placed on record copy of document Ex C-3 i.e copy of bill dated 01.02.2019

cc no.30 of 2021

that proves the pleadings of complainant that he purchased the LED in question from OP-1 for Rs.38,054/- and Ex C-4 proves that he also obtained Complete TV Protection Plan for  three years for Rs.2,999/-from OP-3. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has tried to reiterate his grievance and has made request for replacement of LED. Ex C-5 copy of grievance details leaves no doubt that complainant suffered harassment in the hands of OPs for deficiency in service on their part. Ex C-6 is details regarding defect in said LED and offer given by OPs for 70% of refund of cost price. As per Ex C-8, OPs further offered to make full refund of product value i.e Rs.38,054/-, but then, in another message on Ex C-8 they have sent mail for rejection of refund saying they are sorry and are unable to process the claim.

11                                                    Ex C-10 and Ex C-11 also reveal the chat occurred between complainant and OPs regarding defect in said LED and offer of 70% made by OPs for resolving the matter in dispute and then, OPs again offered full refund as per Ex C-8. Ex C-14 to Ex C-16 are photographs that reveal the black spot on LED and also  prove the pleadings of complainant. There is no rebuttal from OPs side. From the careful perusal of documents placed on record by complainant party it is crystal clear that OPs have failed to

cc no.30 of 2021

redress the grievance of complainant. On the other hand complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings. All the documents furnished before the Commission by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

12                                         In the light of above discussion, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not replacing the LED though it was covered under Protection Plan for  three years for which they charged extra amount of Rs.2,999/-. Had OPs paid sufficient attention to the problem of complainant and had they initiated appropriate steps to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant by replacing the said LED on request of complainant at the first instance when matter regarding said defect came into their notice, case of complainant would have been different. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. OPs No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are directed to replace the defective LED with new one of same model  alongwith fresh protection cover of three years within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, or in the alternative to make refund of Rs.41,053/-alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per anum from the date of institution of complaint till

cc no.30 of 2021

final realization. Complainant is directed to return the LED in question to OPs on receipt of new LED or on refund by OPs as directed. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 16.05.2022

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)              (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

                                                   Member                               President                                          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.30 of 2021

Karan Bansal      Vs     Flipkart India Pvt Ltd.

Present: Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for Complainants,

             OP-1, 2, 3, and 5 Exparte.

              OP-4 deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 09.11.2021

              Exparte arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 16.05.2022

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)      (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

                                      Member                           President