DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2023.

Present   : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

              : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing: 22/10/2022                        

     CC/199/2022

Vishnuprasad.K,

Vishnu Bhavanam,

Vengassery Post,

Ambalappara,

Ottapalam                                                                         -        Complainant

(By Adv.P.A.Surendran)

V/s

1. Kalyan K, CEO

   Flipcard India Pvt. Ltd.

    Vaishnavi Summit,

    Ground Floor, 7^th Main

    80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block,

    Koramangala Industrial Lay out,

    Bangalore – 560 034.

2. Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd.

    Building Alyssa Begonia & clover

    Embassy Tech Village,

    Outer Ring Road,

    Deevarabeesanahalli Village,                                             - Opposite parties

Bangalore - 560 103.

    (Both opposite parties – ex-parte)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.   Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant purchased A “Motorola Edge” 20 Fusion mobile phone through the online portal of the 1^st opposite party for Rs.21,499/- on 05/12/2021. He also availed the warranty assistance called flipcart protect from them by paying Rs.99/- and screen care plan offered by the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.999/-. On verification of the papers received with the phone, it was found that the screen damage protection plan was issued in the name of one “Nandini Gowala”. This matter was immediately informed to the customer care of the opposite parties on 03/06/2022(wrongly mentioned as 03/06/2021 in the complaint). When the complainant approached their customer care for rectifying the defect of the display of the phone under the said plan, the request was rejected on the ground that the policy is not in the name of the complainant. Though the issue was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, several times, the matter could not be resolved. Hence he approached this Commission seeking replacement of the Screen guard with extended warranty, and a compensation of Rs.30,000/- apart from a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.  Through notices were issued to the  opposite parties they did not enter appearance, hence were set ex-parte.

3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A5 as evidence.  Exts.A1 is the tax invoice dated 05/12/21 for the mobile phone purchased. A2 is tax invoice dated 04/12/21 for the Screen Care plan.  A3  is the tax invoice dated 04/12/21 for the flipcart protect, A4 is the Screen Care plan issued in the name of “Nandini Gowala” and A5 is a series  of emails  regarding the complainant’s request for the replacement of the Screen Care plan.

4.  Ext.A2 is the tax invoice issued by 2^nd opposite party for the “screen care plan” to the complainant. But A4 is the policy issued in the name of one “Nandini Gowala”. From the Ext.A5, we can see that the complainant has been following up with the 2^nd opposite party for rectifying the anomaly and to get the policy in his name. From the replies from the 2^nd opposite party, it is clear that the complainant has brought this issue to the notice of 2^nd opposite party.  However there was no effort from their side to rectify the mistake which ultimately resulted in denying the screen care plan benefit to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service. From the evidence adduced it is clear that the 2^nd opposite party  issued the tax invoice for the same and hence responsible for the mistake. Therefore we hold the 2^nd opposite party responsible for the deficiency in service.

             In the result the following reliefs are ordered.

1. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to replace the Screen card with extended warranty for 1 year.
2. In the alternative, if the opposite parties are not ready and willing to replace the screen card, they are directed to pay Rs. 21,499/-, Rs.999/- respectively along with interest @ 10% at the amount from 05/12/2021 till date of payment.
3. The 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards financial loss and mental agony.
4. Rs.10,000/- as cost.

The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

      Pronounced in open court on this the 27^th day of June, 2023.

    Sd/-                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                President

     Sd/-

                                                                              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1  : Tax Invoice dated 05/12/2021 issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ext. A2  : Tax Invoice dated 04/12/2021 issued by the 2^nd  opposite party.

Ext. A3  : Tax Invoice dated 04/12/2021 for flipcart warranty.

Ext. A4  : Screen Care plan in the name of “Nandini Gowala”.

Ext. A5  : Copies of email messages to opposite parties and their replies from   

                17/7/2022 to 25/7/2022.

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party   : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant        : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party      : Nil

Court Witness: Nil

Cost:  Rs. 10,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.