SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

            The complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing  opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the value of TV and compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a iFFalcon by TCL. 100.3cm TV  from Flipcart (OP1) dated on 07/08/2020 and extended warranty from OP2 on 16/08/2020 for two years.  On 28/05/2023 display of the TV became defective and the complainant registered the complaint to 2^nd OP on 02/06/2023 and the official of the 2^nd OP take back the TV.    On continuous contact with OP No.2 they intimated to the complainant that the TV could not be cured and agreed to give the compensation of Rs.10,849.3/-.  The complainant submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the warranty, if OP is not able to rectify the TV within 30 days, they should replace the TV or given the full amount of the TV.  But the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the TV or give the said compensation amount.  The act of OPs caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

            After receiving notice OP No.1 did not file vakalath and version. OP No.2 filed version contending that OP No.2 is engaged in the business of providing various repair services to its customers.  The OP No.2 denies all the allegations contained in the complaint. That OP No.2 is well supported by the service centers having excellent setup for after sales servicing of its products, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel only.  It is submitted that the customers of all the products serviced by the OP No.2 are provided services through a large network of authorized service centers and well qualified technicians.  The network of such authorized service citers is being continuously enhanced and widened in order to bring maximum and efficient services as closer to the customers’ doorsteps as far as possible.  From perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made there in, are vague, baseless and with malafide intent.  The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.  It is denied that there was any delay or any deficiency on the part of the OP No.2.

            After filing version by OP No.2 complainant has taken steps to implead additional OP No.3 as per IA No.274/2023 and impleaded additional OP No.3.  Since OP No.1 and 3have not filed version, they were set ex-parte.

            At the evidence stage, complainant has filed chief-affidavit and documents.  Examined as Pw1 marked Ext.A1 to Ext.A5.  Though OP No.2 filed version, PW1 has not been cross-examined by OP No.2.  No evidence, neither oral nor documentary was adduced by OPs.

            Here through Ext.A1, Tax invoice, complainant proved the purchase of the TV in dispute from OP No.1 on 08/08/2020 for an amount of Rs.15,499/-.  Through Ext.A2 Tax Invoice dated 16/08/2020, complainant proved availing of extended warranty 2 years from OP No.1.  Ext.A3 is the extended warranty terms and conditions issued by OP No.1.  Ext.A5 series are the e-mail communications between complainant and OPs 1 and 2.

            Since the evidence adduced from the side of complainant is not discarded, the averment and allegations of the complainant are unchallenged.  Mere filing of version with contentions by OP NO.2 denying the allegations raised by the complainant against them, alone is not sufficient.

            As OPs have not adduced any evidence and complainant has proved his case through Ext.A1 to A5 series, we are constrained to accept the allegations raised by the compliant.  Though OP No.3 is ex- parte, as complainant has not claimed any relief from OP No.3, OP 3 is exonerated from the liability.  Since there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 and 2, they are liable to redress the grievance of the complainant.

            In the result complainant is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.15,499/-(value of TV)+Rs.1299(extended warranty amount) with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficient action from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Failing which the award amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1- Tax invoice

A2-Extended warranty

A3-Printout message

A4-Phone call list

A5- E-mail massages

Pw1-Nidheesh K P- complainant

     Sd/                                                                                Sd/                                                         Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

                                               /Forwarded by order/

                                                  Assistant Registrar