IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 29 of 2018
Chinmay kumar Sethy,aged about 18 years
S/O-Dhaneswar Sethy, At-Baladev Jew Colony,
Lane No.12-B.Kashipur,Po-Keonjhargarh,
Dist-Keonjhar………………………….………………………………………….…………...…..… Complainant
Versus
1.Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer,
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd. Head office & Corporate Office
8th Floor,Tower-1,Umiya Business Bay,
Mahathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road,Bangalore-560103,Karnatak
2. General Manager/Manager (Sales), Consulting rooms private Ltd.
Ship from Address: Instakart Services Private Ltd
C/O-Pro-Connect- Supply Chain Solution Ltd
Mouza- Sabalpur, PS-Malasalami, Patna,
City/District-Patna,Pin-800009,Bihar
3.Service Centre Head/Manager,
Keonjhar smart Care, Khan Market Complex,
Room No 6,Khata No 119,Gandhi Chowk,
Po/Dist-Keonjhar,Pin-758001,Odisha
Dist-Keonjhar…………………….………………………………………….……………………………..Opp.Parties
Present:
Smt. B.Giri, President (I/C)
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (Member)
Advocate for complainant – Shri M.K Mishra
Advocate for Op1 & Op2 - SK.md Shabuddin & Associate
Advocate for Op3 - R.R Rana & Associate
Date of hearing - 27.11.2019 Date of Order-27.01.2020
B.Giri President (I/C)-
Facts rise to this case is that for personal use complainant placed an order of LED TV through online from Op no 1 vide order ID No-OD112589956451044000 dt.15.06.2018 and as per invoice No #FABPCS1900016037 dt 17.06.2018 said LED smart TV was delivered to the complainant at the door step of the complainant on dt 02.07.2018 on receipt of RS 22,999/- i.e RS 17,967.97towards taxable value and Rs 5,031.03 as GST and warranty was given for one year on product and additional one year on pannel from the date of purchase but the said TV became defective on 9.7.18 i.e just after 7 days of delivery of the said TV and did not display any picture and sound as such complainant lodged complainant through online on dt 4.9.18 vide No TVIN18090400000490 and on dt 10.09.2018 vide TVIN1809100 and further on dt 14.09.2018 vide TVIN1809050000962 but no result found from company as such on 16.09.2018 complainant lodged complaint before Op3 i.e authorised service center of Company who is taking its business at keonjhar to take proper steps to remove the inherent defects in the said TV but Op3 did not agree to interfere with the case without getting permission from the company and there after the complainant issued legal notice to company but company remained silent over the matter causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and hence this complaint for a direction to Ops to refund the total price of the smart TV of Rs 22,999/-and take back the defective TV from the complainant or to supply a new TV of same company and Same model with warranty and further to pay Rs 15,000 towards litigation charges and Rs 1000/-per day from 09.07.2018 to till supply of new TV and in support filed.
1.Copy of report relating to delivery of MI LED smart TV4A108
2. Copy of tax voice dt 17.06.2018
3. Copy of reply letter dt 29.10.18 issued by company authorities.
After due service of notice to Ops,Op1 did not turn up and Op3 appeared through his engaged counsel through appearance memo but did not choose to file written statement on their behalf as such are set exparte on 21.10.2019.Op2 filed its written version through his engaged counsel stating that this Op is an Online seller registered on Flipkart.Com and not the manufacturer but on an online reseller only and the products sold by this Op carries warranty issued by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defects subject to terms and conditions determined by the manufacturers only and as a good will gesture this Op provides 10 days return /replacement policy to its customer in case there is any issue with the product but the present complainant has used the product in question for 2 months and then approached to Op No 1 and Op No 3 and not even this OP and also failed to approach this Op within 10days i.e return/replacement period and as the replacement period provided by this Op was already over, this OP is not liable for any subsequent defects in the product and accordingly prayed to dismiss the case and relied upon a decision of Hon,ble Appex Court “Hindustan Motor Ltd and another” Vs Sivakumar(2000) 10 SCC 654 and Abhinandana Vs Ajit Kumar Verma and others (2008) CPJ 336 (NC) where in it is held that the dealer or retailer can not be held liable for defect in the good/product.
Heard the learned Counsel for Op2 as other Ops have not participate in the hearing and not even come forward to file their written version despite due service of notice and are set exparte on dt 21.10.19.
Admittedly the complainant has purchased the smart TV on payment of Rs 22,999/-on 2.7.19 which found defective on 09.07.2019 and lodged complaint before the company i.e Op No 1 on 4.9.2018,10.09.2018 and 14.09.2018 and, on 16.09.2018, and also approached to Op3 the service centre who is carring its business at Keonjhar.
And there is no dispute that the said smart TV became defective as it is evident from the complaint lodged by the complainant and the said complaint lodged within 2 months of purchase as such it is also admitted that said during warranty period the said TV became defective.
And the submission and date of lodging complaint i.e after 2 months of purchase to Op2 as averred by Op2 is also an admitted facts. The learned counsel for Op2 argued that there is a 10 days time period for refund or replacement of product sold to the complainant but after 2 months as complainant in formed to Op No 2,this Op is not liable for replacement and reling upon the decision relied by this Op pass by Hon,ble Appex court in Hindustan Motor Ltd and anothers Vrs N.Sevkumar (2000) 10 SCC 654 & Abhinandan Vrs Ajit kumar verma and others (2008) CPJ 338 (NC) where it is held that dealer or retailer can not be held liable for defect in the good/product and in view of the legal position laid down by Hon’ble Appex Court.We have no hesitation to held that complaint against this Op .Op i.e Op No2 not maintainable.
Like wise Op3 is the service station who denied its liability as no instruction has been issued from the Company to this Op to Solve the Problem on product.
But in our Opinion the Company can not shift his liabilities after sale of product through its dealer or reseller. There is no dispute that Op1 is the Company of the said TV who used to sold its product to the customer through its dealer/seller and in present case Op1 has sold the product to present complainant through Op2 and despite receipt of complaint time and again did not came forward to rectify the defects or replace the defective TV for which present complainant paid Rs 22,999/- and despite several request and reminder and even service of legal notice Op1 did not come forward to solve the grievance of the complainant resulting mental agony and harassment to the complainant and also caused financial loss as such this Op is liable for compensation for his deficiency of service.
Hence, we held that this Op i.e Op No 1 is liable and it is ordered and Op1 is directed to replace the defective TV of the complainant with same model with Rs 5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to complainant for not providing proper service and take back the defective TV from complainant and in case OP is unable to replace the same then pay the purchase amount of RS 22,999/-with RS 5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 1000/-towards cost of litigation within 15 days of receipt of this order or else the entire amount will carry 8% interest till final payment.
The case is accordingly disposed of. Pronounced in open court under my hand and seal of this forum today i.e on 27th day of Jan 2020.
Pronounced on 27th Jan 2020
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( Smt B. Giri)
Member (I/C.,President)
DCDRF,Keonjhar DCDRF,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
(Smt B. Giri )
I/C (President)
DCDRF, Keonjhar
