COMPLAINT FILED ON 29/09/2022

                                                                         DISPOSED ON 17/01/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:138/2022

DATED: 17^th January 2023

PRESENT: - Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                    Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B., MEMBER       

                    Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

:ORDER:

Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER.

The complaint filed by complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant prays before this Hon’ble Commission to pass orders against opponent to the appropriate repair product or replacement of the said product without any levied charges and provide Rs.25,000/- as a compensation for the deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony and also to pay the costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- and such grant other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit by allowing this complaint.

2. The brief facts of the complaint:

It is submitted that, the complainant had ordered for one “Thomson 108cm 43 inch Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV with In-built sound bar & Netflix” through e-commerce website Flipkart vide Order ID: OD118595083308416000, dated 10.05.2020, that after purchasing the product, the complainant had also purchased for complete (2 years) TV Protection to the opponent concern seller vide Ref number: JWEBOI2A00619, Claim ID : CLJWG03072200713, valid from 10.05.2021 to 09.05.2023, that the complainant was getting every follow up for the same order and received the same on without delay from the seller, that after receiving the same the complainant used the same for months, where he got to know that the said order was not working properly, due to which the complainant was not comfortable regarding the same, to which the complainant tries to reach towards the opponent end to raise the said concern towards the opponent end. The complainant immediately contacted the opponent concerned and escalate the issue, that is to be mentioned that the opponent concern had visited the complainant’s house but he denied to repair the said product and asking for serial number, that is to be mentioned that the opponent concern did not provide any serial number at the time of installation, that when the complainant raised the issue he was asked to provide appropriate documents as well details for verification and inspection of the same said complaint where the complainant submit the same asked reference but it is to be mentioned that the complainant was kept in a loop of verification documents from the opponent end.

3. The Complainant further states that, it is to be mentioned that the complainant had every mail and trail mail for further reference as well which states that how the opponent concern had act un-ethically and kept the complainant in a loop of blame game for the same which is highly un-acceptable, that the complainant every time used to get false assurance from the opponent executive as well as escalated department which states the opponent fraudulent activities to duped the money of the complainant, that it is to be mentioned that it is a question of doubt towards the complainant that his replace and repair request is valid or not from the opponent end after so much hassle and mental struggle created due to the opponent negligence from the opponent end. The further stated in the complaint that, complainant is unable to bear the loss and is suffering for the same, that it has been over many months as of now and still the complainant is very clueless about the said
un-ethical activity initiated from the opponent concern as it states that the opponent concern is deliberately stretching the warranty tenure to be exceed, which is again not acceptable, that it is pertinent to mentioned that the complainant will not get the justice until and unless he will receive the appropriate remedy and solution from the opponent end as the complainant order and return for the same is under the opponent concern and the said complainant have to take the responsibility to refund and compensate for the same to the complainant which happened due to lack of responsibility from the opponent end, raised the complaint on National consumer helpline, finally they were agreed for 70% of refund. After all these irresponsible behavior from opponent, the complainant not agreed for opponent conclusion (compensation) and finally complainant wants the justice from Hon’ble court hence this complaint.  

4. That the Opponents have miserably failed in providing right and proper service despite the Complainant has paid the full amount to the opponent authority and thereby causing deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant instant complaint arose on, the date 27.07.2022 upon non-performance of the opponent of their obligations despite Notice. On these grounds the complainant have prayed for allowing the complaint. 

5. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponent on 13/10/2022 as per postal track consignment.  But Opponent have not appeared before this commission and hence they placed ex-parte on 16/11/2022.

6. The complainant has examined as P.W.1 by through filling, Affidavit along with documents were got marked Ex.A.1 and Annexure 1 and 2 closed his side. Oral Argument heard.  

7. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for                   decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the OP have committed deficiency of service on the part of OP ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
4. What order?

8. Our finding on the above points are as follows:

1. Point No.1 to 3 : Partly in the affirmative.
2. Point No.4 : As per final order.

REASONS   

9. Point No.1: The complainant examined as PW-1 and documents marked as Exhibits A-1 original copy of the Legal Notice dated 27/07/2022, Annexure No.1-Tax Invoice dated 10/05/2020 for Rs.23,999-00/- Annexure No.2- Copy of Extended Warranty period. As such there is no dispute as a consumer between the complainant and opponent.  Hence the issue No.1 is affirmative.

10. Point No.2 & 3: It is observed that, the complainant had ordered for one “Thomson 108cm 43 inch Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV with In-built sound bar & Netflix” through e-commerce website Flipkart vide Order ID: OD118595083308416000, dated 10.05.2020, that after purchasing the product, the complainant had also purchased for complete (2 years) TV Protection to the opponent concern seller vide Ref number: JWEBOI2A00619, Claim ID : CLJWG03072200713, begin on  10.05.2021 and end on 09.05.2023, that the complainant was getting every follow up for the same order and received the same on without delay from the seller, that after receiving the same the complainant used the same for months, where he got to know that the said order was not working properly, due to which the complainant was not comfortable regarding the same, to which the complainant tries to reach towards the opponent end to raise the said concern towards the opponent end. Further complainant states that, immediately contacted the opponent concerned and escalate the issue, that is to be mentioned that the opponent concern had visited the complainant’s house but he denied to repair the said product and asking for serial number, that is to be mentioned that the opponent concern did not provide any serial number at the time of installation, that when the complainant raised the issue he was asked to provide appropriate documents as well details for verification and inspection of the same said complaint where the complainant submit the same asked reference but it is to be mentioned that the complainant was kept in a loop of verification documents from the opponent end.

11. That the Complainant states that, it is to be mentioned that the complainant had every mail and trail mail for further reference as well which states that how the opponent concern had act un-ethically and kept the complainant in a loop of blame game for the same which is highly un-acceptable, that the complainant every time used to get false assurance from the opponent executive as well as escalated department which states the opponent fraudulent activities to duped the money of the complainant, that it is to be mentioned that it is a question of doubt towards the complainant that his replace and repair request is valid or not from the opponent end after so much hassle and mental struggle created due to the opponent negligence from the opponent end. It shows that there is negligence and deficiency in service of OPs.

        12. CP Act 2019 Sec. 2 (34) "Product Liability" means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services. As per complaint allegation the complainant immediately contacted the opponent concerned and escalate the issue, that is to be mentioned that the opponent concern had visited the complainant’s house but he denied to repair the said product and asking for serial number. After that the complainant contact the National Consumer helpline finally they were agreed for 70% of refund. But the opponent irresponsible behavior and the problem is not fixed of LED T.V.

13. In the above circumstances, perused the Annexure-1 Tax Invoice Pertains to purchase of Thomson LED T.V. from the flipkart for Rs.23,999/- and warranty for the said product for 1 year and as per Annexure-2, received by the complainant dated 18/05/2020 on Monday. Extended warranty for LED TV begin on 10/05/2021 and end on 09/05/2023. As per these documents, the complainant said defective Thomson LED TV is within warranty period. Even then, the complainant approached and requested through various media, but the opponent have not turned up and repaired the product and also not appeared before this Hon’ble Commission to lead the evidence to prove that there is no deficiency on their part. As such, the Point No.2 and 3 taken into consideration as Affirmative.

14. Point No.4: As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated there in we pass the following as per the points.

::ORDER::

        The present complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is partly allowed.

It is ordered to replacement of the said product (LED T.V.) without any levied charges.

It is ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony and  to pay Rs.3,000/-   towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OP’s are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

        Communicate the order to parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 17^th January 2023.)

       LADY MEMBER              MEMBER                PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri.Ajay Babu D.K., by way of affidavit    

           of evidence.  

Witness examined behalf of opponent:

Nil.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponent:

Nil.

       LADY MEMBER              MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*GM