Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/76/2021

Hemant Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd, Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Rajpurohit law house

25 Aug 2023

ORDER

 Complaint presented on :22.03.2021

 Date of disposal            :25.08.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                      THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA., :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.76/2021

 

                  DATED FRIDAY THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

Hemant Kumar, M/Age 37 years,

S/o.Bhabutami,

Residing at No.10, Reddy Raman Street,

Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001.

                                                                                                …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager, Unknown,

Having its registered Office at Vaishnavi,

Summit Ground Floor 7^th Main 3^rd Block 80 Feet Road,

Koramangala Bangalore-560 094.

 

2. Tech-Connect Retail Private Limited,

Rep. by its Manger, Unknown,

Rectangle No.6,7,8 and 13 village Khalikpur,

Teshil-Badi, District-Jhajjar FC-Fharrukhnagar,

Jhajjar, Haryana-124 103.

 

3. Jeeves Computer Private Limited,

Rep.by its Manager Unknown,

L-169, 13^th Cross 5^th Main,

Sector-6, hsr layout,

Bangalore, Karnataka-560 102.                                                …..Opposite Parties.

Counsel for Complainant                     : M/s.Rajpurohit Law House.

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3         : M/s.C.Franco Louis and 2 others.

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,        MEMBER-I

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to  Directing the First and Second Opposite Party to pay the sum of Rs. 39,990/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment or replace the product "Mar" Laptop Purchased by the Complainant and Directing the Third Opposite Party to pay the sum of Rs. 999/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment, Direct the First, Second and Third Opposite Parties Jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500/- for the laptop service cost. Directing the First, Second and Third Opposite Parties, jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  towards compensation for the hardship, loss, injury and mental agony caused to the Complainant and cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submits that the Complainant had placed an order for "MarQ" Laptop bearing IMEI Serial No:YK20194850121 through Flipkart (Opposite Parties Nos. 1) sold by second opposite parties on the internet portal of the first Opposite parties and the same has been purchased on 25.01.2020 bearing order number OD117680620496548000 through online for cash delivery of the Complainant on 25.01.2020 with one year onsite warranty and the Complainant has also purchased 2 years additional warranty to complete the protection for his laptop from second and third Opposite Parties. The Complainant states that the order was delivered by the first Opposite Parties through their seller M/s. Tech Connect Retail private Limited (Opp.Parties nos. 2) and the product was given complete protection for 2years by third Opposite parties M/s. Jeeves Computer private limited. The Complainant states that he has collected the same by paying an amount of Rs. 39,990/- dated 25.01.2020. The Complainant also made additional payment for a sum of Rs. 999/- dated 25.01.2020 for the additional protection to his laptop by purchasing the "Complete Laptop Protection (2 Years)". The Complainant submits that after the purchase of said Laptop within 11 months back there was a manufacturing defect that the said Laptop display started showing "NOT BOOTING" and the same that the Complainant prefer to intimation to the second and third opposite parties who is the authorized service center of the first Opposite parties over the phone but the second and third opposite parties has not answered the phone call of the Complainant. The Complainant through email dated 03.01.2021, requested the first opposite parties to send an Engineer and service the fault, and the first Opposite immediately responded to the Complainant mail by apologizing the Inconvenience caused to the Complainant and the first opposite parties informed to the Complainant that they have escalated the defect to their concern team and sought time for 48 hours to resolve the issue. But the Opposite parties has not even responded about the Complainant's Complaint and same the complainant's grievance has not compiled and the fault of Laptop has  not rectified so far. The Complainant states that he has sent a reminder mail on 05.01.2021 regarding his Laptop and informed the first Opposite parties that neither the first Opposite parties sent a service engineer nor any of their escalated team contacted the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the complaint before first Opposite Parties, but the first opposite parties had replied that after the sales, that second Opposite parties and third Opposite Parties are the only responsibility after the sales and service, such that the complaint relief shut down on the first opposite parties and overall, the services of the second and third opposite parties rendered to complainant's complaint in negligence manner and the second and third opposite parties are not taken necessary steps for the rectification of fault of Laptop after the submission of necessary complaint by the complainant, that complainant has wandering here and there for the redressal of the grievance but till date the complainant grievances has not fulfilled only reason on negligence of services rendered by the opposite parties. The complainant has further sent a legal notice through email to the 1st opposite party on 19-01-2021 was replied by the 1st opposite party and a complaint no. L002003211855644 was issued by the 1st opposite party but failed to do and replied that the 1st opposite party defended that 'the after sale 'only the 2nd and 3rd opposite party were liable but no necessary action was taken to rectify the fault with the laptop by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Hence the complainant serviced his laptop with another service station who was not  an authorized service center of the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties have failed to service the disputed laptop even in warranty period even after several requests raised by the complainant and he had suffered physically and mentally and hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed. The opposite Parties submit that the complaint pertained to alleged non repair of the product that was covered by warrant, while the first opposite party merely operated only  an online platform and all the products on the platform have been sold and supplied by independent third party seller, the first opposite party further alleged that the complete protection was given only by the 3rd opposite party and not this answering party and also alleged that he had shared the details of the manufacturer of the disputed laptop with the complainant but the complainant failed to contact the said manufacturer as the product was still in warranty period, still the 1st opposite party took all means of effort as an intermediary to resolve the complainant's dispute and since there is no cause of action the 1st opposite party alleges to dismiss the complaint against the 1st opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party stated that it was only an electronic marketplace model E commerce platform and an intermediary under section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000, and further submitted that the 1st opposite party was protected by the provisions of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000, while they further submit that the Section 5(1) of Consumer Protection (E Commerce)Rules 2020 also provides exemption to marketplace e-commerce entity and further submitted that the answering 1st opposite party does not directly sell any product on Flipkart, rather all products on 1st opposite party platform were sold by 3rd party sellers who avail online marketplace based on terms decided by the respective sellers. Any kind of assurance, whether in terms of warranty on the products, price, discounts, promotional offers, Replacement/refund, after sale services are offered and provided by the manufacturer of the product and also submits that it is the seller who promises the 7 day replacement of the products sold on the 1st opposite party's web platform and not the 1st opposite party itself and 1st opposite party had no role in providing warranty of the sold by an independent seller and also that 1st opposite party is not involved in the entire transaction and the concerned contract of sale and purchase was between the seller and the seller and the buyer and also submitted that the users of the Flipkart Platform are bound by the Terms of Use Enumerated on the Flipkart Platform which clearly state that the contract of sale is a bipartite contract between the buyer and seller only and the 1st opposite party is not a party to it. And also submitted that Seller Tax Invoice clearly state that the order is “ordered  THROUGH Flipkart” and further no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd  opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed. The opposite Parties submit that the complaint pertaining to the non-repair of the product covered in warranty and also submitted that the 2nd opposite party was a registered seller of the 1st opposite party and was carrying out business of sale of goods manufactured by manufacturers who sold products which carried warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers and the 2nd opposite party was providing only 10 days replacement policy if there was an issue with the product which cannot be rectified whereas the current case the complainant has used the product for 11 months and then contacted the 2nd opposite party with alleged issue in the product thereafter and further submitted that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party subsequently  not for any grievance and since the 2nd opposite party cannot be held liable for subsequent defects on the product and the 2nd opposite party prayed for dismissal against them and further alleged that since there was no direct cause of action against the 2nd opposite party and the entire transaction was limited only to selling the products of various manufacturers and it was not the manufacturer or the service provider and the complaint has to be lodged only against the manufacturer and the service provider and not on the seller of  the disputed laptop and relied on decision reported in Hindustan Motor Ltd, and another vs N.Sivakuamar (2000) 10 SCC 654” and in “Abhinandhan vs Ajit Kumar Verma and ORs*2008) CPJ 336 and  prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 3^rd opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed. This opposite party submits that the 3rd opposite party was providing for one stop service point for electric, electronic and IT products and also deals with household appliances services by providing cost effective reliable and quick solutions, after sales support  to major brands /online portal /large retails store like installation, Repair service during warranty and Out of Warranty period for electronic appliances etc. They further defended  that the complainant had not approached the 3rd opposite party even a single time regarding any grievance with the laptop for which the 3rd opposite party and further submitted that the 3rd opposite party had no privity of contact with the complainant and stated that the 3rd opposite party assumed no responsibility or liability for any kind of manufacturing defects whether it be inherent in the product since the time of manufacturing or occurred thereafter at any point of time. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the 3rd opposite party.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part opposite parties 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A7 are marked on their side and written arguments.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 written version & proof affidavits and Ex.B1 documents are marked on the 1^st opposite party side.

6. POINT NO :1:-

               As per complaint it is stated that the complainant placed an order for laptop in the brand name of MarQ through the 1st opposite party’s online portal vide order no.ODI1768062049654800 payment of Rs.39,990/- done on a cash on delivery  mode on 25-01-2020 with one year warranty while a 2 year additional warranty to complete protection for the laptop given by 2nd and 3rd opposite party with the 3rd opposite party gave 2 years complete protection under the head “Complete Laptop Protection(2years)”.It is submitted by the complainant that after 11 months from purchase the complainant had observed a manufacturing defect when the laptop display showed “NOT BOOTING” and the same was communicated with the 2nd and 3rd opposite party   but they failed to answer any phone calls made. On 03-01-2021 the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to send an engineer to service the laptop for which the 1st opposite party responded immediately apologizing for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and informed that they have escalated the complaint to the concerned team and that the complaint will be rectified in 48 years but the 1st opposite party failed to act as promised and the complainant’s laptop was left unrectified. Later on when the complainant enquired the 1st opposite party he evaded the complaint stating that they had no role to play after the sale of the product and it was the 2nd and 3rd opposite party who were liable for the rectification of any fault incurred with the laptop. The complainant averred that the opposite parties are willfully negligent to perform their duties. It is submitted that The 12 months delay in processing of a complaint had resulted in disturbance to the complainant and he had suffered physical hardship, financial loss, and mental agony. It is further submitted that the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 05-01-2021 for replacement of the laptop or to refund the value of laptop within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice which was returned by the opposite parties. The complainant has further sent a legal notice through email to the 1st opposite party on 19-01-2021 was replied by the 1st opposite party and a complaint no. L002003211855644 was issued by the 1st opposite party but failed to do repairs and replied that the 1st opposite party defended that 'the after sale  'only the 2nd and 3rd opposite party were liable but no necessary action was taken to rectify the fault with the laptop by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Hence the complainant serviced his laptop with another service station who was not an authorized service center of the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties have failed to service the disputed laptop even in warranty period even after several requests raised by the complainant and he had suffered physically and mentally and hence this complaint.

          7. On the other hand the first opposite party had defended that the complaint pertained to alleged non repair of the product that was covered by warrant, while the first opposite party merely operated only  an online platform and all the products on the platform have been sold and supplied by independent third party seller, the first opposite party further alleged that the complete protection was given only by the 3rd opposite party and not this answering party and also alleged that he had shared the details of the manufacturer of the disputed laptop with the complainant but the complainant failed to contact the said manufacturer as the product was still in warranty period, still the 1st opposite party took all means of effort as an intermediary to resolve the complainant's dispute and since there is no cause of action the 1st opposite party alleges to dismiss the complaint against the 1st opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party stated that it was only an electronic marketplace model E commerce platform and an intermediary under section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000, and further submitted that the 1st opposite party was protected by the provisions of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000, while they further submit that the Section 5(1) of Consumer Protection (E Commerce)Rules 2020 also provides exemption to marketplace e-commerce entity and further submitted that the answering 1st opposite party does not directly sell any product on Flipkart, rather all products on 1st opposite party platform were sold by 3rd party sellers who avail online marketplace based on terms decided by the respective sellers. Any kind of assurance, whether in terms of warranty on the products, price, discounts, promotional offers, Replacement/refund, after sale services are offered and provided by the manufacturer of the product and also submits that it is the seller who promises the 7 day replacement of the products sold on the 1st opposite party's web platform and not the 1st opposite party itself and 1st opposite party had no role in providing warranty of the sold by an independent seller and also that 1st opposite party is not involved in the entire transaction and the concerned contract of sale and purchase was between the seller and the seller and the buyer and also submitted that the users of the Flipkart Platform are bound by the Terms of Use Enumerated on the Flipkart Platform which clearly state that the contract of sale is a bipartite contract between the buyer and seller only and the 1st opposite party is not a party to it. And also submitted that Seller Tax Invoice clearly state that the order is “ordered  THROUGH Flipkart” and further no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          8. The 2nd opposite party being the seller of the disputed laptop defended the complaint stating that complaint pertaining to the non-repair of the product covered in warranty and also submitted that the 2nd opposite party was a registered seller of the 1st opposite party and was carrying out business of sale of goods manufactured by manufacturers who sold products which carried warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers and the 2nd opposite party was providing only 10 days replacement policy if there was an issue with the product which cannot be rectified whereas the current case the complainant has used the product for 11 months and then contacted the 2nd opposite party with alleged issue in the product thereafter and further submitted that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party subsequently  not for any grievance and since the 2nd opposite party cannot be held liable for subsequent defects on the product and the 2nd opposite party prayed for dismissal against them and further alleged that since there was no direct cause of action against the 2nd opposite party and the entire transaction was limited only to selling the products of various manufacturers and it was not the manufacturer or the service provider and the complaint has to be lodged only against the manufacturer and the service provider and not on the seller of  the disputed laptop and relied on decision reported in Hindustan Motor Ltd, and another vs N.Sivakuamar (2000) 10 SCC 654” and in “Abhinandhan vs Ajit Kumar Verma and Ors(2008) CPJ 336 and  prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          9. On the other hand, the 3rd opposite party defended the complaint stating that though the 3rd opposite party was providing for one stop service point for electric, electronic and IT products and also deals with household appliances services by providing cost effective reliable and quick solutions, after sales support  to major brands /online portal /large retails store like installation, Repair service during warranty and Out of Warranty period for electronic appliances etc. They further defended  that the complainant had not approached the 3rd opposite party even a single time regarding any grievance with the laptop for which the 3rd opposite party and further submitted that the 3rd opposite party had no privity of contact with the complainant and stated that the 3rd opposite party assumed no responsibility or liability for any kind of manufacturing defects whether it be inherent in the product since the time of manufacturing or occurred thereafter at any point of time. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the 3rd opposite party.

          10. Perused documents and oral arguments of complainant and opposite parties. The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a laptop under the brand name MarQ launched by Flipkart falcon AerbookCore i5 8th Gen -8GB/256GB SSD /WINDOWS 10 Home MAi5882SWT Thin and Light Laptop with IMEI/Serial No.YK20194850121 with one year warranty commencing from the Date of Purchase was sold by 2nd opposite party  through 1st opposite party’s online portal vide order no.OD117680620496548000 and 2nd opposite party’s invoice number FAC7XD2006009670 by paying Rs.39,990/- payment done on a cash on delivery  mode on 25-01-2020 with one year warranty while a 2 year additional warranty to complete laptop protection was provided by the 3rd opposite party by payment of Rs.999/- vide 3rd opposite party Invoice No.EAAAAB-03860842 dated 25-01-2020 while the order was placed through 1st opposite party and sold by the 2nd opposite party as found in Ex.A1 the tax invoice of the 2nd opposite party which contains the address of the seller- the 2nd opposite party, and the after sale service provider-the 3rd opposite party and it is pertinent to read the bottom of the invoice which contains contact Flipkart 1800 208 9898   which is evident that the buyer is instructed to contact the 1st opposite party for any grievance with the purchased product and the contact address of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is provided in the tax invoice. The dispute arose when the complainant’s laptop suffered a Booting error and the same was communicated by the complainant to the 1st opposite party vide email dated 03-01-2021 which was well within the warranty period and  which was replied by the 1st opposite party vide email dated 03-01-2021 apologizing and conveyed that the said grievance was escalated to the concerned team for rectification and requested for a 48 hours duration for further assistance as found in Ex.A7 at page no.10.

11. The complainant’s email dated 05-01-2021 to the 1st opposite party alleging that the complainant never received any call or email from the 1st opposite party technician even after the 48 hours gap as mentioned in the 03-01-2021 communication was responded by the 1st opposite party on the very same day stating that the complainant’s grievance was escalated to concerned team and again requested for another 48 hours duration for further assistance is found in ExA4, However the complainant issued a legal notice to all 3 opposite parties on 05-01-2021 found in ExA3 and the same had been conveyed to the 1st opposite party in email date 19-01-2021 which was responded by the 1st opposite party on 20-01-2021 that a complaint was registered vide complaint ID L0002003211855644 and assured that one of their service engineers would contact the complainant within 48 hours and provided the complainant with a toll free number 080 46609211 for further assistance  found in ExA4. The legal notices sent to the opposite parties vide courier as found in Ex.A5 but the notices to opposite parties 2
& 3 were found to have been returned. The service bill for the disputed laptop done by a 3rd party service centre at a cost of Rs.6500/-is found in ExA6.

12. Meanwhile it is observed from ExA1 that the laptop Marq was sold through the online platform of the 1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party in his version had stated that inspite of providing the contact details of the manufacturer to the complainant, the complainant had failed to communicate his grievance with the manufacturer which is not tenable as the 1st opposite party had failed  establish the same. As per Email conversations in Ex.A4 and Ex.A7 it is found that the complainant had escalated his grievance with the 1st opposite party who has sent a reply mail by stating that the complainant concern is escalated to the concerned team and requested 48 hours for further assistance and further it is found from the email reply of the 1^st opposite party dated 20.01.2021 that one of their service engineer will getting touch with the complainant within 48 hours which means that the 1^st opposite party has informed about the defect in the laptop to the service team namely the 3^rd opposite party but even after that it seems that the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorized service centre has failed to take necessary steps to rectify the defects in the laptop by sending its service engineer which shows that negligence and deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties in not rectifying the defect in the laptop even after comply during the extended warranty period which was issued by the 3^rd opposite party as found in Ex.A2 tax invoice.

13. Although complainant claimed that he had sent legal notices dated 05-01-2021 found in ExA3 were sent to 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, on the perusal of ExA5 it is observed that the covers containing legal notice to 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have returned.  It is found from Ex.A1 that the 1^st opposite party has failed to furnish the details regarding the address of the manufacturer as stipulated in Consumer Protection (E-Commerce Rules2020) which reads that Section 5. Liabilities of marketplace e commerce entities. Subsection 3(c)information relating to return, refund, exchange, warranty and guarantee, delivery and shipment, modes of payment, and grievance redressal mechanism, and any other similar information which may be required by consumers to make informed decisions; according to which the seller 2nd opposite party is subject to disclose the details of the product including the manufacturer for further  redressal procedures but had failed to do the same.

14. The opposite parties has relied upon ‘SGS India Pvt. Ltd vs Dolphin International Ltd ‘civil appeal no.5759 of 2009 order dated 06-01-2021,Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr.Manu SC/0707/1999:(2000)1 SCC 66 but the facts of the above said cases were not applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. On perusal of records it is found that the 1^st opposite party is an intermediary through whom the complainant ordered and purchased the disputed laptop which was sold by the 2^nd opposite party and service protection was given for the said product by the 3^rd opposite party.  Admittedly there was no defect in the laptop for about 11 months and thereafter there was a Booting problem in January-2021 which was informed by the complainant to all the opposite parties over phone but it is alleged that the call was not answered but for a mail sent by the complainant the 1^st opposite party replied stating that the service team will contact the complainant which means that the complaint was informed to the 3^rd opposite party which is authorized service centre.  Though the complainant has sent legal notice to all the opposite parties the notices 2 & 3 were returned but any how by virtue of phone call made by the complainant and by virtue of the information passed by the 1^st opposite party regarding the defect the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite party were having knowledge about the defect in the laptop but has not taken any steps to rectify the same which amounted to deficiency in service on their part since the defect occurred within the additional warranty period and hence for their failure to rectify the defects at free of cost the complainant was put to hardship and made to repair the same by approaching a  3^rd party by paying Rs.6500/- as found in Ex.A6 which is liable to be paid by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties to the complainant and further it is found that since there is no manufacturing defect established in the laptop there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and only the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not rectifying the defect within the warranty period. Point no 1 answered accordingly.

16. Point no.2:-

Based on findings  given to Point No.1 there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 & 3 in not rectifying the defects in the disputed laptop during the warranty period and hence they are liable to pay Rs.6500/- to the complainant being the laptop service cost spent by him and further liable to pay the compensation of Rs.30000/- to the complainant towards deficiency in service and mental agony and also liable to pay Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.6500/- to complainant being the laptop service cost spent by him and also to pay the compensation of Rs.30000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant towards deficiency in service and mental agony and also pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months of the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment. The complaint against the 1^st opposite party is dismissed.

Dictated by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25^th day of  August 2023.

 

MEMBER – I               MEMBER – II                                   PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	25.01.2020	Purchase bill.
Ex.A2	25.01.2021	Protection/Warranty Bill.
Ex.A3	05.01.2021	Legal notice.
Ex.A4	19.01.2021	Legal notice sent through mail.
Ex.A5		Receipt of return cover.
Ex.A6	18.02.2021	Service bill.
Ex.A7		Mail conversation with the 1st opposite party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1

Flipkart terms of use.

 

 

MEMBER I               MEMBER II                                   PRESIDENT