DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2024.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 18/12/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

C.C No. 510/2018

Complainant:

Aneesh.T.U., S/o. Usman.T.M. 42/577, Sajitha Manzil, Ayyappankavu, Cochin-682018.

(Rep. by Adv. T.O. Xavier, 2^nd Floor, Edassery Building, Banerji Road, Ernakulam)

Vs

Opposite Parties:

1. Cloudtail India Private Limited, TCI Warehouse, Unit-I, St.No.496/A, 497, Viopperipalayam Village, Post-Kaduvettipalayam, Karumanthampattil Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore-641659 Tamil Nadu. Rep.by the Authorized Signatory.
2.  Amazon.in Cloudtail India Private Limited, TCI Warehouse, Unit-l, St. No.496/A, 497 Viopperipalayam Village, Post-Kaduvettipalayam, Karumanthampattil Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore-641659 Tamil Nadu. Rep. by the Authorized Signatory.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleges that the 1st opposite party, claiming to be an authorized representative of the 2^nd opposite party for the online business of Panasonic televisions, assured a discount on the sale of a Panasonic 147 cm Full HD-LED TV. Based on this assurance, the complainant placed an order and paid Rs. 49,990 on 30.8.2018, receiving a tax invoice and delivery of the television. However, upon installation, it was discovered on 6.12.2018 that the television had internal issues and could not be installed.

Despite multiple complaints, the 1st opposite party did not respond with any communication regarding repair or replacement. The complainant asserts that the 1st opposite party delivered a defective television and failed to either repair or refund the payment.

The complainant prays for the Commission to issue a notice to the opposite parties for deficiency in service, order the replacement of the defective television, and direct the 1st opposite party to return Rs. 49,990 with interest from 30.8.2018 until the payment is made.

2) Notice

             The notice to the opposite parties was sent by the commission. However, despite accepting the notice, the opposite parties did not file versions, and as a result, they are set ex parte.

   3) . Evidence

                        The complainants submitted an ex-parte proof affidavit along with one document, marked as Exhibits-A-1.

• Exhibit A1: Photocopy of Tax invoice dated 30.8.2018.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

iii)     If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:

In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  Photocopy of Tax invoice dated 30.8.2018. The invoice evidencing payment to the opposite parties (Exhibits A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties. The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite parities.

The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.

Summary of Argument Note filed by the complainant

The 1st opposite party introduced themselves as the authorized representative of the 2nd opposite party for Panasonic Television online sales. They assured a discount on the Panasonic 147 cm television.

Based on this assurance, the complainant ordered a Panasonic 147 cm Full HD-LED HSN 8528 television. The 1st opposite party issued a tax invoice for Rs. 49,990/- on 30.8.2018 and delivered the television to the complainant's residence.

The television was found to be defective and could not be installed. The 1st opposite party refused to replace the television or refund the amount. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint on 18.12.2018.

The complaint was posted for hearings on several dates: 18.1.2019, 20.4.2019, 3.7.2019, 26.11.2019, 5.2.2020, 20.3.2020, 14.5.2020, and 2.7.2020. However, neither the opposite parties nor their counsel appeared. The complainant also submitted a detailed affidavit, but there was no response from the opposite parties.

The case is now posted for hearing on 27.3.2024. Given the opposite parties' consistent absence, the complainant requests that an ex parte order be passed against them.

                          The opposite parties' conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

                     We have thoroughly reviewed the argument note submitted by the learned Counsel representing the complainant and have also examined all the evidence on record.

Points of Analysis

1. Maintainability of the Complaint: Under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is defined as a person who buys goods or avails services for consideration. The Complainant, having purchased the television and paid for it, qualifies as a consumer. Thus, the complaint is maintainable.
2. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practices: The evidence presented, including Exhibit A1, indicates that the Complainant purchased a television that was found to be defective. The failure of the Opposite Parties to replace the defective television or refund the payment constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Entitlement to Relief: Given the unchallenged evidence and the absence of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is entitled to relief. The Hon'ble National Commission, in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC), held that the failure of the opposite parties to file a written version despite receiving notice amounts to an admission of the allegations against them.
4. Legal Analysis and Observations

The Opposite Parties' failure to file a written version or appear before the commission indicates their negligence and deficiency in service. The Consumer Protection Act mandates that sellers and service providers maintain the quality of their products and services. The persistent absence of the Opposite Parties further strengthens the Complainant's case.

1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Judgment: In 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC), the NCDRC held that non-appearance and failure to contest by the opposite parties amount to acceptance of the complainant's claims.

     E.   Liability of the Opposite Parties

Based on the evidence, legal provisions, and the absence of any defence from the Opposite Parties, it is clear that the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

                                           Considering the evidence, the complainant's unchallenged contentions, and the serious deficiency in service caused by the opposite party, we find the issues in favour of the complainant. The opposite party's actions amount to unfair trade practices and deficient services, deceiving and enriching themselves with the complainant's money and that of the public.

                               We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence, the prayer is allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Parties shall replace the defective Panasonic 147 cm Full HD-LED television with a new, defect-free unit of the same model. In the alternative, refund the amount of ₹49,990/- (Rupees Forty-nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) to the Complainant as evidenced by Exhibit A-1 (Invoice).
2. The Opposite Parties shall pay ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to the Complainant as compensation. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the Complainant.
3. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the Complainant ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.

The Opposite Parties are mandated to comply with the directives mentioned above within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under points I and II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (18.12.2018) until the date of full payment realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 21^st day of June 2024.

Sd/-

    D.B. Binu, President

                                                                                                Sd/-

Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A1: Photocopy of Tax invoice dated 30.8.2018.

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                       

kp/

CC No. 510/2018

Order Date: 21/06/2024