BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.243 of 2019    

                                                                   Date of Inst. 04.07.2019

                                                                   Date of Decision: 10.07.2024

Puneet Dhiman s/o Sh. Raj Kumar r/o 27 SAS Nagar Extension, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. H.No.37/3, Old Rejender Nagar,     Near Water Tank, Central Delhi, New Delhi-110060, Through its     M.D/Directors.

          Second Address

          M/s Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. Indospace PWS Industrial Park       Pvt. Ltd Building No.3-A, Village Lauhari, Pataudi Kulana Road,    MDR-132, Tehsil & Distt. Jhajjar-Haryana, Through its M.D/Directors.

2.       M/s Cloud Walker Streaming Technologies Pvt.Ltd. A-503,    Business Suite 9, SV Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400 054,    Through its M.D/Directors.

3.       M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7th          Main 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Banglore- 560034.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                           (Member)                                  

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   None for the OP No.1.

                   Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                    The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased one 65 inches TV/LED bearing product no.TVs/WE73191/Cloud Walker bearing Model No.CLOUD TV 65SU from OPs, vide Invoice No.FAAAVM1800310986 dated 01-02-2018 for Rs.69,249/-. The payment was made by the complainant from the Credit Card of his bank. The complainant has purchased the above said LED through Flipkart i.e. OP No.3 at Jalandhar and the vendor of the said product is OP No.1. OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the above said LED. At the time of purchase of the TV/LED, Opposite Parties gave assurance that the product has 2 years Warranty. At the time of purchase of the LED, OPs have allured through E-Advertisement on Flipkart regarding 2 years warranty period of the LED. Infact, the said product was purchased by the complainant only because of the reason that OPs were giving 2 years warranty on the LED. Moreover, the warranty card given by OPs along with the invoice also depicts that the period of warranty is 2 years. In the month of March 2019, the complainant faced some screen display problem, as there occurs some black line on the screen and immediately made a complaint to the Customer Care department of OP No.2. Thereafter the service engineer visited the complainant but refused to give free of cost service under the pretext that the product is not under warranty. However, the complainant shocked to hear the said words from the service person/Engineer of OP No.2 and informed him that the LED is still under warranty period. But the said Engineer informed the complainant that he will have to bear the expenses for the repair of the LED, as his company does not allow him to do repair/replacement without taking money from the complainant. Even the complainant had shown the Warranty Card depicting 2 years warranty to the said service engineer, but he refused to extend the services without taking money from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant wrote to OP No.2 vide e-mail dated 09-03-2019 and in response to the said e-mail, OP demanded the some documents i.e. copy of invoice/bill and image of full screen display, to be send via e-mail to OP. Acting as per the instructions of OP, the complainant sent the above said invoice and image to OP via e-mail on the same day i.e. on 09-03-2019. Even thereafter, the complainant did not receive any positive response from the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant made various communications to OPs by e-mails and made repeated requests & complaints to get the repair/replacement of the LED, as the complainant is facing issue regarding its display, but to no effect. Due to non-providing of the service & not repairing/replacing the LED, the complainant had to face high headedness & humiliation in the hands of OPs. Since, the complainant is unable to watch clear picture/image on LED, due Member to the fault in the display panel of the LED and OPs have refused to do the free of cost repair/replacement of the said display panel, as such, the complainant is suffering great mental agony and torture. The complainant had purchased the TV/LED due to the fact that two years warranty was available with the same. The fault occurred in the LED within the warranty period. But despite of making various complaints to OPs, they did not pay any head to the genuine request & complaint of the complainant and keep on harassing him by putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The OPs are indulging in unfair trade practice to sell the goods & are not giving proper service/replacement and not fulfilling the commitments and as such they have contravened the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The act & conduct of OPs falls under the category of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. The TV/LED got the display issue due to some manufacturing/technical/mechanical/electronic fault within the warranty period but the same has not been rectified till date. The OPs are committing fraud & cheating with the public including the complainant by making false assurances/advertisements regarding the 2 years warranty period on the TV/LED and the complainant is legally entitled to get the amount of LED along with compensation & damages.

The complainant then send/served registered Legal Notice dated 09.11.2018 through his Advocate to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the value of the LED i.e. Rs.69,249/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 did not appear and ultimately, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that   the complainant has suppressed true and material facts and has not approached the Forum with clean hands and is trying to mislead the Forum by presenting a concocted story, hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint as the complainant is not a consumer of the answering OP. It is further averred that the answering OP, Consulting Rooms Private Limited, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at House No.3713, Old Rajinder Nagar, Near Water Tank, New Delhi- 110060. It is further averred that the answering OP is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. It is further stated that the answering OP is a registered reseller on the website "Flipkart.Com" and sells products of other manufacturers, traders, etc. under their respective Trade Marks through the website. It is not out of place to mention that the answering OP has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. It is further averred that the answering OP is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced on its own. The answering OP is engaged in selling of goods manufactured and produced by others. It is further averred that  the present reply is signed and verified by Ms. Sneha Kumari, who is Authorized Signatory of the answering OP Company and is authorized to sign and verify the Reply/Written Statement, Vakalatnama, appoint advocate on behalf of the OP. vide the Board Resolution dated 06.02.2018. It is further averred that the main grievance of the complainant is related with the defect in the product which was manufactured by O.P No.2, it has been specifically alleged in the complaint that there was some manufacturing defect, therefore it is clear that answering OP has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the product as the answering OP is not a manufacturer and nor the service provider of the product in question. It is further necessary to mention here that the product in question carries manufacturer Guarantee or Warranty subject to terms and conditions. Therefore, in this situation the complainant has rightly approached the OP No.2, who is the manufacturer of the product, it can also be seen from the document attached by the complainant that the warranty is issued by the manufacturer only. Therefore, the answering OP does not come into picture once the product is delivered safely to the complainant. Thereafter, the liability is of the manufacturer to provide after sale service. It is further necessary to mention here in the entire complaint, there is no specific grievance which has been made against the answering OP. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been only filed with malafide intention, just for harassing the answering OP. That the present Complaint against the answering OP is neither maintainable in the eyes of law nor on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine as it does not show any cause of action against the answering OP. The present complaint is devoid of any merits, and the averments made in the complaint are baseless and do not cover the complete facts of the case and are made only with the intention to defame the answering OP and extorting money illegally. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the LED/TV by the complainant from OP No.3 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action has been arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. The warranty period of the TV/LED purchased by the complainant i.e. period of one year from the date of purchase (01.02.2018) has already been expired. As the said product was not in the warranty period, the repair to be provided was chargeable. The complaint was not ready to pay the charges and therefore the answering OP has rightfully denied the services on free of cost basis. It is further averred that the complainant has tried to mislead the court by producing Logistic Invoice rather than producing the Purchase Tax Invoice. It is clearly mentioned in the warranty card that the warranty period applicable is that mentioned in the Purchase Tax Invoice. The Purchase Tax Invoice was provided to the complainant on email of the complainant by the OP No.3 and is available in their flipkart.com account. The complainant is trying to manipulate the court by concealing material documents. That being so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that OP No.1 and OP No.3 are authorized distributors of OP No.2. This means that OP No.2 sells a large quantity to them and OP No.1 and OP No.3 sell them to individual customers. The complainant had purchased the TV/LED from flipkart.com, which is owned and operated by OP No.3. The TV/LED was sold to the Complainant by authorized distributor of the product i.e. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. (here after referred to as 'OP No.1'). As the TV/LED is sold by OP No.1 on flipkart.com. OP No.2 does not have any record of sale to end customers. The warranty of the product solely relies on the Purchase Tax Invoice issued by Authorized Distributors, Sellers or Platforms (in this case flipkart.com or OP No.3). This is in fact standard across industries where in sale is facilitated by a third party apart from its original manufacturer. It is further averred that the complainant has approached this Forum with unclean hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting material facts. The present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature and has been filed with the sole intention of harassing the OPs. It is further averred the complainant has knowingly and intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. It is further averred that the present complaint is the misuse of the legal process. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the LED/TV by the complainant from OP No.3 is admitted and it is also admitted that the extent of problem faced by the complainant in the display of the LED/TV and the refusal by the service engineer of the OP No.2 for free of cost service, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.2 only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant as well as OP No.1 and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the OP No.2 very minutely.

7.                The complainant has alleged that he had purchased the TV/LED, vide Invoice Ex.C-1 and the payment was made from credit card of the bank of the complainant as per Ex.C-2. The LED was purchased through OP No.3 and the vendor of the product is OP No.1, whereas OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the LED. As per the complainant, after going through the e-advertisement on Flipkart, he was given two years warranty period of LED. The LED was purchased on 01.02.2018 and in the month of March, 2019, the complainant faced screen display problem. The LED was sent to the service centre, but the Engineer of the OP No.2 refused to repair the LED alleging that the same is not within warranty period, but the complainant has alleged the same to be in warranty period as per warranty card Ex.C-3. The complainant has alleged that the invoice and other documents were sent to the OPs vide email on 09.03.2019, but he never got any positive reply. He has proved on record the emails Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-13. The complainant also sent legal notice Ex.C-14 to the OP, but to no effect.

8.                The OP No.1 on the other hand, has alleged that the grievance of the complainant is related with the defect in the product, which was manufactured by OP No.2. The OP No.1 has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the product. The OP No.1 is neither a manufacture nor the service provider of the product in question. Once the product is delivered to the consumer, the role of the OP No.1 comes to an end as he is only the vendor. The complainant has nowhere raised any grievance against the OP No.1 nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

9.                The OP No.2 has alleged that there was no warranty of two years as alleged by the complainant. The warranty period of TV/LED purchased by the complainant was for one year and which has expired from the date of purchase i.e. 01.02.2018. The OP No.2 has alleged that the complainant was asked time and again to produce the purchase tax invoice Ex.OP2/1, which is the pre-condition of the warranty card and warranty period, but the complainant has failed to produce the purchase tax invoice. The OP No.2 has further alleged that the LED was purchased by the complainant through OP No.3 from OP No.1 i.e. the vendor. The OP No.2 don’t have any record of sale or purchase, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

10.              The invoice and credit card shows the payment was made by the complainant for the LED purchased by the him through Flipkart for Rs.69,249/-. This fact has been admitted by the OPs also. The complainant has mainly alleged that there was a warranty of two years and he has relied upon the warranty card Ex.C-3. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows that the Cloud TV carried warranty of two years (one year standard warranty and one year extended warranty), meaning thereby that actual warranty is one year and extended warranty is again for one year. The complainant has produced on record the emails sent by the complainant to the OPs, vide which he has claimed that the engineer of the OP visited their location but has refused to give service free of cost. In reply to the email Ex.C-4, the OP has sent reply Ex.C-5 vide which they have demanded from the complainant purchase invoice PDF and image of the full screen. The image has been sent by the complainant vide emails, but the complainant has sent the tax invoice and not purchase invoice. As per Ex.C-7, the OP has suggested the complainant and told the complainant how to take out the purchase invoice PDF by going to the Flipkart App. The complainant has alleged that he had sent the tax invoice which was received by him. Perusal of the tax invoice Ex.C1 shows that there is the mention of the invoice number which is purchase invoice. Ex.C-1 is the tax invoice. The OP has produced on record the purchase invoice Ex.OP2/1, wherein the number of invoice has been mentioned and in this invoice, it has specifically been mentioned that one year cloud walker warranty and as per Ex.C-3 at the time of availing the facility within warranty period, one has to produce the purchase tax invoice. In Ex.C-1 i.e. tax invoice nothing has been mentioned about the warranty, whereas in Ex.OP2/1 i.e. tax invoice, which is alleged to be purchase tax invoice, the warranty period has been mentioned. The complainant did not get print as suggested by OP nor demanded purchase tax invoice from OP. Thus, as per record the complainant did not purchase extended warranty and hence the warranty proved to be of one year, which had already expired. The complainant fails to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                      Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

10.07.2024                    Member                               President