30th day of July 2022
CC 533/21 filed on 31/12/21
Complainant : Dr. A. Kannan, S/o Arjun, Sozha House, XII 521,
Vellanikara West, Madakathara P.O.,
Thrissur – 680 651.
(In Person)
Opposite Party : Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd., L-169,
13th Cross, 5th Main, Sector – 6, HSR Layout,
Bangalore – 560 102, Karnataka.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Statedly, the complainant purchased a “Thomson LED TV, (Serial No.TH430TH100020200107405) from Flipkart online platform under Order ID OD118603434968132000 dtd.11/05/2020. He also purchased a “complete TV protection (3 years)” warranty for the TV in question from the opposite party, paying a price of Rs.2,199/- vide their Invoice No.EAAAAB-04053853 dtd. 11/05/2020 under the same order ID referred to above. In November, 2020 the complainant found a few lines on the display of the TV and the matter was complained to the Flipkart with case ID : FLRT-C62JP3-AC0CKV-NHFTZB-FOHJVHV. Consequently, an executive of the opposite party came and took the TV with him for repairs, assuring the complainant that the TV after repairs would be delivered back within two weeks. But the opposite party subsequently informed the complainant by email that the TV in question cannot be repaired and that a refund of Rs.19,199.20 would be effected, after adjusting the depreciation value of Rs.4,799/-. The complainant who did not agree with the said proposal, claimed for a replacement under the complete TV protection warranty, which the opposite party has not so far accepted. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to refund the purchase price of the TV, along with other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
Though the Commission issued notice to the opposite party, they failed to enter appearance or file their version before the Commission. Hence proceedings against the opposite party had been set ex-parte.
3) Evidence :
The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A3, apart from affidavit. The proceedings against the opposite party being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission has very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is print out of the Invoice No. FADZXE2100001072 Dtd.11/05/2020, issued infavour of the complainant, under Order ID : OD118603434968132000 dtd.11/05/2020 in respect of the purchase of the TV in question through Flipkart. Ext. A2 is print out of the Invoice No. EAAAAB-04053853 dtd. 11/05/2020 issued by the opposite party infavour of the complainant, towards the 3 years complete TV protection, under the same Order ID referred to in Ext. A1. Ext. A3 is the Complaint Receipt under Case ID : FLRT-C6ZJP3-AC0CKV-NHFTZB-F0HJVH4.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the act of the opposite party is tantamount to unfair trade
practice or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
opposite party ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any compensation
from the opposite party ? If so its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
Ext. A1 Invoice copy evidences the complainant’s purchase of the TV on 11/05/20. Ext. A1 itself bears the endorsement “one year warranty”. Ext. A2 which bears the same order ID as in Ext.A1 further proclaims “complete TV protection (3 years)”. The TV in question exhibited defects in about 6 months of its purchase, which point of time is covered under the warranty/protection promised by both Ext. A1 & A2 documents. The opposite party miserably failed to repair the TV in question even during the initial period of its warranty / protection. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is conspicuous and their evasion from the bounden duty/responsibility towards their consumers is obviously an unfair trade practice. The opposite party failed to file even their version before the Commission, inspite of their having received the Commission’s Notice to that effect. Their conscious failure to file version amounts to admission of the complainant’s allegation against them. The Hon’ble National Commission expressed the same view in judgement cited as 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
7) Point No (ii) & (iii) :
As elaborated supra, Point No.(i) is proved infavour of the complainant. The TV in question went faulty well within initial period of its warranty / protection, that too in about 6 months of its purchase. The opposite party failed to successfully repair the TV and reportedly the TV collected by the opposite party for repair has not so far been returned to the complainant. Therefore the opposite party shall refund to the complainant the purchase price of the TV in question i.e. Rs.23,999/-.
The complainant who purchased the TV paying a sum of Rs.23,999/- apart from Rs.2,199/- for a “complete TV protection (3 years)”, could not enjoy its fruits owing to the wrong doings on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the opposite party has to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience caused to him and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to
- refund to the complainant the purchase price of the TV i.e. Rs.23,999/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only),
- pay complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for compensation for the inconvenience caused to him and
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs of litigation,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite party shall comply with the above direction within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of July 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 print out of the Invoice No. FADZXE2100001072 Dtd.11/05/2020,
issued infavour of the complainant under Order ID :
OD118603434968132000 dtd.11/05/2020 in respect of the purchase of
the TV in question through Flipkart.
Ext. A2 print out of the Invoice No. EAAAAB-04053853 dtd. 11/05/2020
issued by the opposite party infavour of the complainant towards the 3
years complete TV protection, under the same Order ID referred to in
Ext. A1.
Ext. A3 Complaint Receipt under Case ID : FLRT-C6ZJP3-AC0CKV-
NHFTZB-F0HJVH4.
Id/- Member
