Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/239/2022

Mangal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

in Person

23 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 239 of 2022

                  Date of Institution             : 02.12.2022

                                                           Date of Decision               : 23.01.2024

 

 

Mangal son of Sh. Jagdish R/o H.No.315, Gali No.6, Dadri Gate, Shanti Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana.

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Consulting Rooms Private Limited, Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd., Rectangle No.2,3,4,6,7,8,9, Khaliqpur Village, Badli Tehsil, District Jhajjar, Haryana Gurugram, Haryana India-124103.

 

2. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangla, Bangalore-560034, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

 

3. Flipkart India Private Limited, SY No.42/1 & 43, Kacherkanahalli, Village Jadigenehalli Hobli, Hoskote, TQ Bangalore, Urban Karnataka-560067 through its Managing Director.

 

4. Leeves Consumer  Services Private Limited, L-169 13^th Cross, 5^th Main, Sector-6, HSR Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka-560102, through its authorized person.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Sh. Deepanshu Tuteja, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a MarQ by Flipkart 108 cm 43 Full HD LED Smart Android TV with Urtra Thin Bezel which was sold by OP No.1 through OPs No.2 & 3 on 11.01.2020 in a sum of Rs.18,999/-. Complainant has alleged that with the said TV, he had also taken three years complete TV protection plan from OP No.4 on 10.01.2020 and paid Rs.999/- for the same.  It is alleged the remote control of the said TV stopped working on 12.09.2022, upon which, complainant informed the OPs on 13.09.2022 but of no solution. So, complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.11.2022 to the OPs in this regard. OP No.4 replied that they are unable to provide the remote control of the TV and ready to take back the product after depreciating 60% value on Rs.18,999/-, which was not acceptable to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs and issuing directions to them either to provide a new remote of the TV or receive back their product and to pay the amount of Rs.18,999/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment and monetary loss. Further to pay Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed their separate reply to the complaint.

3.                 OP No.1 filed reply that the TV in question was purchased by the complainant and the same was delivered to him on time. Hence, the role of answering OP is only to sell the products of various manufacturers and as soon as the product is delivered at the address provided, no deficiency in service attributed against it.  In the present, case the product was sent to the complainant in a sealed pack as was received from manufacturer. It is added that, warranty /guarantee on the product is of manufacturer. In the end, prayed has been made for dismissal of complaint qua it.

4.                 OPs No.2 & 3 filed its written statement submitting that the TV in question was ordered through the answering OPs and the product is sold/supplied by OP No.1 and the complete protection was taken by the OP No.4. It is clarified that MarQ Brand of TV in question is a separate and distinct entity from the answering OP and it has no relation with the other OPs. As such, this OP has submitted that no liability is of the answering OP. In the end, prayer has been made for dismissal of present complaint.

5.                 OP No.4 submitted its written statement admitting that a complete protection policy of the TV in question was taken by the answering OP but the product was sold/supplied by OP No.1. It is submitted that this OP providing services of the other brands within the policy period only.  Further, it provides after sales services of the limited brands.  On a complaint made by complainant, the remote control was found not in working but its spare product was not available with it. So, refund was offered to the complainant by MarQ Branch.  It is stated that remote does not cover under warranty of complete protection.  In the end, prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint against it with  costs.

6.                 Complainant, in evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.

7.                 On the other side, no documents tendered in evidence rather lerned counsel for Ops made a statement that written statements already filed on behalf of OPs may be read into their evidence and then closed the evidence.

8.                 We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the OPs and perused the record minutely.

9.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that remote control of the television became out of order and thus he faced hardship in operating the same. OP No.4 who has given protection cover to the TV has admitted that its remote control was not working and the product was not available with them and thus they suggested refund of the same.  Complainant to substantiate his name as Mangal @ Krishan, with Aadhar Card No.4065 7052 2431, has filed his duly sworn in affidavit dated 02.01.2024 which taken on record as Mark-X.

10.               Purchase of the TV in Rs.18,999/- from OP No.1 is not in dispute.  Complainant vide document Ex. C-2 purchased complete protection to the TV for a period of three years from 10.01.2020 by paying extra amount of Rs.999/-. As per version of complainant, the remote stopped working on 12.09.2022 which means that it became defective within its protection period by OP No.4. However, this fact also not denied by the OPs in their pleadings. Ex. C-1 shows that the TV was purchased by complainant on 11.01.2020 and admittedly, defect in its remote control arose on 12.09.2022 which shows that complainant has used the TV for a period of about 2 years and about 9 months as defect free.

11.               From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that the OPs have remained deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and failed to redress his grievance. By such act & conduct of OPs complainant must have harassed and suffered mental and physical pains. Refund of cost of remote control was not a solution for the complainant especially when the product is not available with the manufacturer/seller and there is also possibility that it would not be available in the open market. Further, without the remote control, the TV will create more inconvenience to the complainant in operating the same. Since, the complainant has used the TV for a considerable period, therefore, it will be appropriate, if 20% amount is deducted as depreciation cost from purchase price of the product. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund Rs.15,199/- (Rs.Fifteen thousand one hundred ninety nine) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual realization, subject to return of the of the old TV by the complainant. The television will be provided to OP No.1 at the door step of complainant.  
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant at the hands of OPs.
3. To pay Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

 

Announced.            

Dated: 23.01.2024.

(Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)

.                                     Member                              Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.