D.O.F:04/02/2022
D.O.O:20/04/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.26/2022
Dated this, the 20th day of April 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
T.V. Chandran,
Thelakkatt House, : Complainant
Kollada,
P.O. Kamballur- 670511
And
- Flipkart,
Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd,
Buildings Alyssa,
Begonia & Clove Embassy,
Tech Village, Outer Ring Road,
Devarabeesanahalli Village,
Bangalore- 560103, Karnataka
(Adv. A. Naveen Shankar)
: Opposite Parties
- Luminary Life Styles (P) Ltd,
Unit No.4, Fourth Floor,
Fantazy Square, Door No. 2-1/6/Fs/IV/4,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad,
Telengana- 500081
(Advs. Pradeep Rao & Awanish Srivastava)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The complainant is alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party No:2 in connection with the non-installation of Smart TV sold by them within stipulated time.
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a smart TV from Opposite party No:1, Flipkart by online transaction and the TV is delivered to the complainant on 08/10/2021 on payment of Rs.10,999/-. The Opposite parties offered to install the TV but delayed. The Opposite party given many dates for installation but failed to install the same. After one month complainant installed the TV with the assistance of a private technician. After installation the complainant came to know that the quality of the installation of TV is very poor. The purpose of the complainant is to watch the fish pond situated about 150mtrs away from the house of the complainant with closed circuit camera system of the smart TV. Due to the installation problem, the complainant was unable to watch the fishpond from his house. This caused mental agony and discomfort to him. The Complainant was constrained to go out and watch the fish pond during nights. The complainant was alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as they failed to install the smart TV as promised earlier. So the complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.42,360/- with cost.
The Opposite party No:1 filed version, Opposite party No:2 prayed time for version, but not seen filed. According to Opposite party No:1 he is an intermediary between the service providers and customers. The complainant purchased a Smart TV from Opposite party No:2 and there is no specific allegation against Opposite Party No:1. This complaint was filed with ulterior motive to extract illegal compensation from Opposite Parties. There is no cause of action to filed the present complaint against Opposite party No:1 and the complaint is baseless and notmaintainable againstOpposite partyNo:1 hence it may be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined by the counsel of Opposite party No:1 as PW1. The documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A3. The complainant filed IA 329/22 to amend relief sought in the complaint, which is allowed.
The issues raised for the consideration are
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. If so what is the relief?
Here the complainant purchased a Smart TV from Opposite party No:2 through Opposite party No:1 on line but the Opposite party delayed the installation of the TV for more than one month then the complainant constrained to depend on a private technician to install the TV. On installation the complainant came to know he could not see fishpond through the camera of the Smart TV which situates 150 mtrs away from his home. The defect occurred due to the installation problem. Due to the non-installation of TV by company technicians the complainant suffered loss and mental agony. The complainant was constrained to go out during nights to watch the fish pond. Ext A1 is the tax invoice issued to the complainant on 5/10/2021 for Rs.10,999/-, Ext A2 is the tax invoice for Rs.2360/- on 20/11/2021 to the complainant. Ext A3 series are the mail communication between the complainant and Opposite party No:1. Ext A1 and A2 shows that the complainant purchased a smart TV from Opposite party No:1 and installed the same on next month with the help of a technician named Manu Prasanth. Ext A3 series are the mail communication from Complainant to the company. Fed up with the latches on the part of Opposite parties thecomplainant sought the assistance of a private technician to install the smart TV. The allegation of the complainant is that if the company had provide their technician to install the TV the quality of the installation would be more better. Even after installation he could not watch the fishpond through closed circuit smart TV. This made mental strain to the complainant. Ext A3 series proves that there is delay on the part of Opposite party. The undue delay in installing the Smart TV caused the complainant to seek the assistance of a private technician. Due to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party no:2 the complainant suffered loss and mental agony. The complainant is entitled for the loss and agony undergone by him.
The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.42,360/- including installation charge and compensation.Considering the facts and situation of the complainant this commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for the installation charge of Rs.2,360/- along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite party no:2 to give a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with the installation charge of Rs.2,360/ (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty only) with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Tax invoice dated 05/10/2021
A2: Tax invoice dated 20/11/2021
A3 series are the mail communication
Witness Crossexamind
PW1: T.V. Chandran
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
