Complaint filed on:02-12-2020
Disposed on: 02-03-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.75/2020
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), MBA, L.L.B, PRESIDENT (I/c)
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Girish.S,
Janani, 4th Main,
1st Left “A” cross,
Jayanagara west,
Tumkur-572102
(By Sri.T.R.Ramesh Babu, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite party:-
Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd, L-169, 13th Cross,
5th Main, Sector 6,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore-560102
(By Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, Advocate)
ORDER
SRI.KUMARA.N, PRESIDENT (I/c)
This complaint was filed under Section 32 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) to award compensation of Rs.50,000-00 in all heads to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. It is the case of complainant that, the complainant purchased VU Official Android 109cm (43 inch) Ultra HD (4k) Led Smart TV on 10-10-2018 through Flipkart vide Tax Invoice No.#FAB2NG1900005101. The said television running condition was so bad, for that the complainant requested the OP through email and called several times to give service to the said television. In this regard, the OP company technician Sri.Girish has promised the complainant to give service for a period of two years ie warranty from 12-10-2019 to 11-10-2021, further complainant paid an amount of Rs.2, 340-00 on 22-10-2018,towards extended warranty. (sl.no.JFLKFI2AF4022, GST no.29AABCJ9421C1ZP). In spite of the complainant approached the OP through phone calls, emails and personal visits for service of said TV, the OP has not come forward and not given single service till now and the said television is not in working condition. The OP has not given service to the complainant and caused deficiency of service, the complainant has got mental agony, loss, due to fake promises etc. and the OP is held responsible and liable to pay amount of Rs.50,000-00. Hence, this complaint.
3. In spite of service of notice, the OP has appeared through its learned counsel and filed version contending that the averments made in the complaint as false and denied and the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. When the complainant raised the complaint, the service engineer inspected the said TV and found display of the TV set was damaged, which happened due to complainant not taken proper care of the set, therefore the defective parts of the set required to be replaced. The same was informed to the complainant, but the complainant denied the service offered by the OP stating that as he has already approached this Commission, hence the complacent not accepted the OP’s service. Further OP submitted that there were no manufacturing defects in the TV and the defects is in the said TV set, which happened due to mishandling by the complainant resulted in physical damage to the TV set, hence, refund, replacement or repair of such cost or physical/water damages were not included in the warranty terms and conditions of the said TV set. The OP further submitted that not impleded the manufacturer as the necessary party to this case, as we are the service providers of the said TV set and acted as per the terms and conditions of warranty. The complainant not approached this Commission with clean hands and as a service provider, we are willing to carry out the necessary repairs and replace the parts, as per the terms and conditions of warranty. But the complainant is denying our service. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OP, therefore, OP prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced Exs.P1 to P5 documents. On behalf of OP, one Sri.Sheetal Tiwari authorized representative of OP has filed affidavit evidence and produced terms and conditions.
5. We have heard the oral arguments of complainant and OP counsels and the points that would arise for determination are as under:
1) Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative for the below
REASONS
7. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, TV set supplied by the OP was defective and not performing as a result called many times and sent email to OP to rectify the same as said TV set was in warranty period and complainant opted extended warranty period to avail better service from the OP, but OP not attended the complaint, which leads to deficiency in service on the part of OP.
8. The OP counsel admitted the fact that Complainant purchased VU Official Android 109cm (43 inch) Ultra HD (4k) Led Smart TV on 10-10-2018 through Flipkart vide Tax Invoice No.#FAB2NG1900005101and paid Rs 27499.00, and the OP defense (Version & Affidovit) to the complainant allegation of said TV not working properly, which was not due to manufacturing defect, but due to the complainant mishandling the said TV set, on contrary OP stated that complainant not impleded said TV manufacturer as necessary party to this proceedings.
9. The Complainant produced Ex P1 and P2 Dated 17th. Nov 2020, 18th Nov 2020, 19th Nov 2020 and 23rd Nov 2020 which were Copies of Email sent by the complainant to the OP to send Service technicians as said TV not working properly in turn OP replied to the complainant on 17th Sept 2020, which proves that complainant approached the OP for service of the said TV set to rectify the fault. The EX P4 was tax invoice of said TV set for Rs 27499.00 paid by the Complainant and EX P4, where Complainant paid Rs.2340.00 to the OP towards extended warranty of the said TV between 12th October, 2019 to 11th October, 2021 to avail better service from the OP.
10. This is a case of E-commerce, termed as electronic commerce with an objective of buying and selling of goods or services. This transaction is mostly done using Internet as medium to transfer money and transactional data but the goods are transferred physically with the help of logistics facility.
11. Business-to-consumer (B2C): B2C is the most common kind of e-commerce. When shoppers buy something from an online store, they are involved in business-to-consumer e-commerce.
12. Deficiency of Service; Section 2 (11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines Deficiency of Service as “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 (a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer and (b) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.”
13. The term ‘defect’ is defined under Section 2 (10) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as “any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under and law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or products and the expression ‘defective’ shall be construed accordingly.
14. In this case the complainant purchased said TV through Flipkcart, i.e. online booking (E-Commerce), the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 stated under duties of sellers on marketplace:– (3) No seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity shall refuse to take back goods, or withdraw or discontinue services purchased or agreed to be purchased, or refuse to refund consideration, if paid, if such goods or services are defective, deficient or spurious, or if the goods or services are not of the characteristics or features as advertised or as agreed to, or if such goods or services are delivered late from the stated delivery schedule.
15. The Complainant allegation is on the OP, that OP not attended Complaint of TV, even though warrantee period is there and complainant availed extended warrantee by paying extra amount to the OP. Now the burden is on the OP to prove said TV set mistake due to manufacturer defects or someone, but The OP being the service provider his duty is to rectify the faults to resolve the issues. The complainant availed extended warrantee from the OP by paying extra amount of Rs 2,340-00 to avail better service, but inspite of the complainant request OP not acted, which leads to deficiency in service on the part of OP.Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed.
The OP is directed rectify the complaint of TV with fresh extended warranty of two years from the date of repair and pay compensation of Rs 10,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.6,000-00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, otherwise, it carries interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 2nd day of March, 2022).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (I/c)
