IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 214/2020 (Filed on 29-12-2020)
Petitioner : Friends Mobiles,
Kozhichanda Road,
Kottayam.
Rep. by Haris K.E.
Mundakam,
Perumbaikadu P.O.
Kottayam
(Adv. K. Ubaideth)
Vs.
Opposite party : Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt Ltd.
L-169, 13th Cross, 5th Main,
Sector – 6. HSR Layout,
Bangalore – 560 102.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant purchased a LED Smart TV from Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore through Flipkart for Rs.41999/-. The product was ordered on 05.01.2019 and invoice dated 06.01.2019 with one year warranty given by the manufacturer and 2year extended warranty by the opposite party on payment of an additional Rs.3499/-.
On 15.11.2020 the said TV started showing issues in display. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party and they registered a complaint CLJP19112000291 on 19th November, 2020. When a technician from the opposite party inspected the TV, he found that it was panel issue and according to the opposite party panel issue was not easily repairable. Replacement of panel also was not sufficient. On 26.11.2020 the opposite party sent an email to the complainant that they would not be able to repair his product as the repair cost exceeded the maximum cost as per extended warranty conditions. Hence they would like to refund the price of the TV after deducting the depreciation value of Rs.8399.8/- which amounts to Rs.33599.2/-. Though the complainant demanded replacement of the TV, the opposite party was not amenable to that. The opposite party is bound to repair the TV with a new one as per the extended warranty. On 13.12.2020 the complainant got an email in which the opposite party cancelled even the previously offered refund. So due to this unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party, the complainant had to suffer loss and mental agony hence this complaint is filed for compensation.
Though the notice sent by the commission was received by the opposite party, they did not care to appear or file version hence the opposite party was set ex parte.
The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and exhibits
A1 to A3.
In the light of the pleadings and evidence, we frame the points as -
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and if so what are the reliefs?
Points are considered together.
The complaint is filed for compensation against the unfair trade practice of the opposite party in denying proper relief to the grievance of the complainant under the extended warranty offered by the opposite party by receiving a payment of Rs.3499/-. As per Exhibit A2, issued by the opposite party, they had received Rs.3499/- for the extended warranty for the TV purchased by the complainant. There is no warranty condition recorded in A2 document. Only to “Keep this invoice and manufacture box for warranty purposes.” Is written on the document. The complainant alleges that the opposite party inspected the TV through a technician and found that it was not repairable and offered refund of depreciated value vide Exhibit A3.Later they informed that they were not ready for a refund also. As per the Exhibit A2, the opposite party gives extended warranty under which they are bound to repair the damaged TV at free of cost. But due to some reason, they said that the repair of the TV would cost more than the amount of the TV and hence no repair could be done. The complainant is not at all responsible for this. A TV purchased by a consumer is meant to function for a reasonable time. But the TV of the complainant got damaged immediately after the warranty period. The opposite party admits that the defect caused to the TV is due to some untold non rectifiable reason. By accepting additional payment for the additional warranty, the opposite party has assured the complainant that they would give proper service to him on the event of the happening of some defect or damage. If they see that the defect is not curable, they are bound to replace the TV. The act of the opposite party in not addressing the complaint of the complainant properly and to get it redressed after accepting consideration is an unfair trade practice which caused the complainant gross financial loss and mental stress.
Hence in the light of above discussion we allow the complaint.
O R D E R
1.The opposite party is directed to replace the TV of the complaint or in default
repay the full amount of the TV Rs.41999/-
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.
Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amounts will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.06-01-19 by Flipkart
A2 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.05-01-19 by Flipkart
A3 – Copy of E-mail copy dtd.13-12-2020
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nll
By Order
Assistant Registrar
