BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 294/2022 Filed on 25/07/2022

ORDER DATED: 23/12/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant purchased an Amazone Basics 43 inch Fire TV for his parents on 3^rd November 2021.  But it failed to function on 21^st June 2022.  The same day itself the complainant complained this defect to the opposite party.  The first service request was scheduled on 23^rd June 2022, but nobody cared for this or even tried to contact with the complainant.  Instead, complainant got a status email form the opposite party saying services completed.  Therefore, complainant reported this to be an incorrect status.  The opposite party scheduled service for 28^th June.  Unfortunately, on that day also the same deficiency in service was repeated.  Complainant contacted the opposite through its customer service and made it to their notice.  Opposite party said that they have escalated the issue and complainant got a confirmation email saying that it will be solved with in two working days.  Again, the deficiency in service continued from the part of the opposite party.  Complainant contacted the opposite party and explained the whole story to them, and this deficiency was repeated whenever the complainant contacted its customer service.  On 7^th July 2022 representative of opposite party told the complainant that the opposite party cannot process the request as it has been automatically closed on June 29.  Later based on the instruction form opposite party, complainant created a new request and service and scheduled for 9^th July, this time also complainant has to suffer the difficulty caused in deficiency in service of the opposite party.  Again opposite party rescheduled it for 14^th July, they even promised the complainant that this time the issue will be properly dealt with.  On 14^th also there was no response from the side of opposite party till evening.  After evening service was automatically reached to 17^th then to 15^th then again to 16^th.  This mischief was repeated in some random ways and on July 16^th and 17^th the complainant got email saying “customer wants a reschedule.  Do you still want to reschedule otherwise the order will be automatically cancelled in next 48 hrs”.  again, the complainant contacted the opposite party and made to their notice what is happening and the service was scheduled for July 20^th.  Now this time one service representative contacted the complainant and enquired the details.  After hearing the issue with TV, the complainant that he hails from new TV installation team and he cannot do this work.  It is surprising that though the issue was agitated many times there was no response from the side of the opposite party to confirm the status of the product and rectify the deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint. 

After accepting the notice the opposite party was absent.  Hence opposite party set ex parte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.A1 to A5 series marked.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:- We perused relevant documents on record.  As per Ext.A1 is the complainant purchased LED TV for an amount of Rs.29,999/-.  Ext.A2 is the copy of tax invoice for an amount of Rs.29,999/-.  Ext.A3 is the copy of Amazon final order details for TC extended warranty order.  Ext.A4 is the copy of Tax invoice for the TV Extended warranty for paying Rs.861/-.  Ext.A5 is the copy of email communications from the opposite party.  The opposite party was not ready to repair the TV.  As per Ext.A3 & A4 the TV became damaged within the warranty period.      

The complainant had purchased a TV for his parents from the opposite party on 03/11/202.  But it is failed to function on 21/06/2022.  So the TV became damaged within the warranty period.  But the opposite party was not came to inspect the TV and repaired the defects of Television.  The complainant had informed the opposite party in several times.  But the opposite party has not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.  The opposite party was not ready to repair the TV.  As per Ext.A3 & A4 the TV became damaged within the warranty period. 

In the above discussion we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result complaint allowed.  We directed the opposite party to pay Rs.29,999/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) as the price of the TV and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as the compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.  After compliance of order the opposite party can take back the TV.             

  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 23^rd day of December,  2022.

C.C. No. 294/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT