IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 30^th day of October, 2024

Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President

  Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri.K.M.Anto, Member

C C No. 29/2024 (Filed on 25.01.2024)

O R D E R

Sri. Manulal V.S. (President)

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Sony X7400H 138.8 cm (55inch) television manufactured by the third opposite party from the second opposite party. The said television was purchased from the online portal of the first opposite party. The television had a one-year manufacturer warranty and the complainant purchased a TV protection warranty for three years from the fourth opposite party. However, in July 2023, the television started to show some issues and when the complainant contacted the first opposite party, they informed the complainant to contact the fourth opposite party. As directed by the first opposite party, the complainant contacted the fourth opposite party. The fourth opposite party sent a service person. The service person of the fourth opposite party inspected their television and informed the complainant about changing the main panel. However, the 4^th  opposite party  refused to provide service to the complainant and sent an email to the complainant, stating that the plan is valid from 12.04.2024 to 11.04.2027.

 Hence, the complainant filed this complaint, praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to replace the TV with a new TV of the same model with a proper warranty and to pay a compensation of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as the cost of this litigation.

After the admission of the complaint, the notice was duly served to the opposite parties. The first and third opposite parties appeared before this Commission and filed versions. Despite receiving notice from this Commission on 10.02.2024 and 14.02.2024, the second and fourth opposite parties neither cared to appear before this Commission or file a version within the statutory period.

Version of the first opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party is the owner of the website www.flipkart.com along with its mobile application named "Flipkart”, which inter-alia is engaged in providing trading/selling facilities over the internet through its platform. Opposite party is an online marketplace e-commerce entity defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. The 'Flipkart Platform' is an electronic marketplace model E-commerce platform that acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third-party sellers and independent end consumers. It is submitted that these sellers are separate entities controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders.

The business of the opposite party falls within the definition of an "intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The opposite party is protected by the provisions of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant placed the order for the product  Sony X7400H 138.8 cm (55 inch) Ultra HD(4K) LED Smart Android TV on 28.01.2021, which was delivered to the complainant on 03.02.2021. The first opposite party fulfilled their obligation by ensuring the primary delivery of the products as per the agreed terms. The complainant sent an email to the customer service team of the first opposite party on 01.09.2023 stating that the television was not working. The first opposite party contacted the complainant on 03.09.2023. However, the complainant requested a call back. Therefore, the first opposite party interacted with the complainant on 06.09.2023 and requested the complainant to contact the service center for further assistance. The complainant contacted the first opposite party on 24.12.2023, stating that he was facing issues with the device. The customer service team interacted with the complainant and requested the complainant to contact the brand for further assistance, as the product was under warranty.

The complainant ordered the product through the platform of the opposite party after agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned on the website of the opposite party. Flipkart Platform clearly states that the contract of sale is a bipartite contract between the buyer and the seller and the opposite party is not a Party to it. Flipkart does not make any representation or warranty as to specifics (such as quality, value, salability, etc) of the products or services to be sold or offered to be sold or purchased on the platform. Flipkart does not implicitly or explicitly support or endorse the sale or purchase of any products or services on the platform. Flipkart accepts no liability for errors or omissions, whether on its behalf or with third parties.

Flipkart is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of any contract entered into between buyers and sellers. Flipkart cannot and does not guarantee that the concerned buyers and sellers will perform any transaction concluded on the platform. Flipkart shall not and is not required to mediate or resolve any dispute or disagreement between buyers and sellers. Flipkart does not make any representation or warranty regarding the item-specifics (such as legal title, creditworthiness, identity, etc.) of any of its users. Flipkart does not at any point of time during any transaction between buyer and seller on the platform come into or take possession of any of the products or services offered by seller nor does it at any point gain title to or have any rights or claims over the products or services offered by seller to buyer.

There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as the complainant is facing an issue with the product and the opposite party, irrespective of that, has made earnest efforts to redress concerns outside its purview.

The third opposite party filed version contending as follows:

 The complainant purchased a 'Sony X7400H 55" Ultra HD (4k) LED Smart Android TV bearing model name: KD-c55X7400H  and 8D No: 8003117' on 28.01.2021 worth ₹ 63,999/- (Rupees Sixty-three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). The aforesaid product was sold to the complainant by an independent third-party seller, i.e., the second opposite party, through the e-commerce marketplace of the first opposite party.

        The complainant further purchased an extended warranty from an independent third-party insurance company, namely, Jeeves Consumer Services Private Limited, by paying a sum of         ₹ 5,399/- (Rupees five thousand three hundred and ninety nine only).

It is an admitted fact by the complainant that the 3 year extended warranty was purchased from Jeeves Consumer Services Private Limited. It is significant to note that the third opposite party does not authorize Jeeves Consumer Services Private Limited. Hence, no liability can be fastened upon the third opposite party.

The complaint clearly states that the role of the third opposite party vis- à-vis the present complaint is limited to being the brand owner of the impugned product. Thus, the impleadment of the third opposite party in the present complaint is based on a complete misnomer, and on this ground alone, the present complaint needs to be dismissed for the misjoinder of the parties.

The complainant herein has never raised any grievance or issue vis-à-vis the impugned product with the third opposite party, and it is only through the present complaint that the third opposite party has been made aware of the alleged grievance of the complainant. As stated in the complaint, the alleged grievance of the complainant arose only in July 2023 and was covered under the 3 year extended warranty provided by the fourth opposite party, he correctly approached the fourth opposite party. It is imperative to note herein that the fourth opposite party vide email dated 03.02.2021 has admittedly provided a 3 year extended warranty from 03.02.2021 to 02.02.2024 and considering the alleged issue arose in July 2023, which is well beyond the expiry of the standard 1 year warranty, the complainant has correctly approached the fourth opposite party who is solely responsible for providing assistance towards the 3 year extended warranty sold by him.

The third  opposite party, through its terms and conditions, clearly states that Sony India Pvt Ltd does not have a tie-up with any third party to provide extended warranty for Sony Products, and it is sold only through its authorized service centers. The third opposite party has not authorized or endorsed the sale of any third party extended warranty and accordingly the contract of extended warranty was entered into between the complainant and the third party insurance company. Therefore, the liability in relation to the product or the extended warranty can only be attributed to the third-party insurance company and the product and not against the third  opposite party.

        In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that no grievance arises qua third opposite party. In fact, by way of the present complaint, the complainant is seeking relief only from the fourth opposite party and accordingly, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the third opposite party.

The complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant. There is no oral evidence from the side of the first and third opposite parties. The documents produced by the first and third opposite parties are marked as Exhibits B1 to B3.

We would like to consider the following points in evaluating the complaint and the evidence on record.

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost

Point Nos. One and Two together.

There is no dispute on the fact that  complainant purchased a 'Sony X7400H 55" Ultra HD (4k) LED Smart Android TV bearing model name: KD-55X7400H  and 8D No: 8003117' on 28.01.2021 worth ₹ 63,999/- (Rupees sixty three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) which is manufactured by the third opposite party, from the second opposite party through the online portal of the first opposite party. Exhibit A1 proves that the complainant had paid ₹ 63,999/-(Rupees sixty three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the second opposite party towards the price of the television.

According to the complainant, he had purchased a complete TV protection extended warranty of three years from the fourth opposite party. It is proved in Exhibit A2, the tax invoice issued by the fourth opposite party to the complainant, that he had purchased complete TV protection for three years by paying ₹ 5,399/- (Rupees five thousand three hundred and ninety nine only) to the fourth opposite party.

The specific case of the complainant was that the TV started to show some issues and became completely out of service. As per the direction of the first opposite party, the complainant contacted the fourth opposite party on 27.11.2023, to repair and service the television under the extended warranty. On that day itself, the fourth opposite party sent Exhibit A4  e-mail to the complainant, assuring that they would hear from him within the next 24 hours. The complainant submits that the authorized technician of the fourth opposite party inspected the television and informed him that the main panel of the television is to be changed and he will visit again for the repair. Exhibit A5, which is the email sent by the fourth opposite party to the complainant, proves that the 4th opposite party assured him that a technician would visit again by 15.12.2023 to repair the product. The specific allegation of the complainant is that the fourth opposite party without carrying out the repair work under the extended warranty coverage as assured by them. On going through Exhibit A6, which is the e-mail dated 24.12.2023, we can see that the fourth opposite party informed the complainant that his previous claim was cancelled. They further assured him they would help him register the complete protection claim again.

On a close reading of the Exhibit A3 e-mail dated 03.02.2021, we can understand that the fourth opposite party offered the complainant complete TV Protection (3 years). It is evident from Exhibit A3 that the plan would start on 03.02.2021 and end on 02.02.2024. Exhibit A3 further proves that the fourth opposite party assured ₹ 28,399/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand three hundred and ninety nine only) being the exchange price from 05.02.2022 to 05.02.2023 and ₹ 21,299/- (Rupees twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety nine only) from 06.02.2023 to 06.02.2024. Therefore, it is evident that the fourth opposite party offered complete protection for the complainant's television from 03.02.2021 to 02.02.2024.

As discussed above, the fourth opposite party closed the request of the complainant to rectify the defects of the television under  complete TV protection, which they offered after receiving a consideration.

According to Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, “deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

(i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and

(ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.

Therefore, the act of the fourth opposite party of not providing the benefits of complete TV protection to the complainant amounts to a deficiency in service on their part. No doubt, due to the deficient act of the fourth opposite party, the complainant had suffered much hardship and mental agony. As a result, we allow this complaint against the fourth opposite party. The complaints against other opposite parties are dismissed.

We hereby direct the fourth opposite party to rectify the defects of the television of the complainant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing in which to refund ₹ 21,299/- (Rupees twenty one thousand two hundred and ninety nine only) ie the exchange price offered by the fourth opposite party vide Exhibit A3 with interest @9% from 24.12.2023 till realization.

1. We hereby direct the fourth opposite party to pay ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the fourth opposite party.
2. We hereby direct the fourth opposite party to pay ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of this litigation.
3. The fourth opposite party is directed to pay the compensation amount to the complainant within 30  days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest  @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.

Pending Application(s), if any, are automatically disposed of as being rendered infructuous.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of October, 2024

Sri. Manulal V.S, President  Sd/-

    Smt. Bindhu R.  Member     Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member       Sd/-

APPENDIX :

Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :

A1    -       Copy of Tax invoice dated 30.01.2021.

A2    -       Copy of Tax invoice dated 28.01.2021

A3    -       Copy of e-mail dated 03.02.2021.

A4    -       Copy of e-mail dated 27.11.2023.

A5    -       Copy of printout of the message send by 4^th  opposite

                party 

A6    -       Copy of e-mail dated 24.12.2023

Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :  

B1    -       Certified copy of the resolution  

B2    -       Copy of warranty terms and conditions

B3    -       Copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of

                Directors of Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd.,

By Order,

sd/-

                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar