District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.449/2021.

 Date of Institution: 07.09.2021.

Date of Order: 03.08.2022.

Jitender Kumar S/o Shri Jamna Dass R/o H.No. 574, Block-E, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                M/s. Jeeves Service Center, 5-H/49, Ist floor, Metro Road, NIT, Faridabad through is Authorized Signatory.

2.                M/s. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village Outer Ring road, Devarabessanahali Village, Bengaluru – 560103, Karnataka through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                    …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                    Ms. Rama Kaur, counsel for the Complainant.

                             Ms. Tanvi, Advocate proxy counsel for Shri.  Awanish Srivastava, Advocate for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had purchased an Ultra HD4K LED Smart Android T.V. with Netflex of 48.5” of opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.2 vide purchase order NO. OD116790806362521000 dated 14.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.21,249/- with extended warranty of Rs.1930/- total amounting to Rs.23,179/- vide invoice  dated 15.10.2019.  Extended warranty was valid till 13.10.2022.  At the time of purchasing the above said LED the representatives of the opposite party No.2 had disclosed to the complainant that the said LED would functioning very smoothly upto 10-12 years as the said LED was Worldwide Brand Name company’s LED and their products were very expensive from the other companies’ products also assured the complainant that in case if during that period in case if the said LED would create any problem then they were capable to repair the same as they had part of the their products upto 15-20 years for providing the best services to their valuable customers.  On believing the words of the said representative as well as keeping in view of the repudiation of the opposite party No.2 in Electronics Business Market, the complainant had purchased the said Ultra HD4K LED Smart Android LED.  After the purchase of only 11 months the said Ultra HD4K Smart Endroid T.V had crated problem and nothing was appearing on display and the said T,V had stopped functioning  on dated 13.02.2021.  Upon which the complainant made a complaint to the customer care center of the opposite party No.2 on dated 15.02.2021.  Thereafter, a mechanic/engineer of the opposite party had visited to the house of the complainant on and after making the inspection of the said Ultra HD4K LED Smart Android T.V. the mechanic/engineer had disclosed to the complainant that a manufacturing defect had created in the said Ultra HD4K LED Smart Endroid T.V. and the same would be repaired by the opposite party No.1 at their service center/workshop.  Thereafter the complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties but the complaint of the complainant did not resolve till date and the said Ultra HD4K LED Smart Endroid T.V was still in dead condition in the house of the complainant.  06 months but T.V. was not repaired till date also no refund offer by the company (within 30 days promise repair or refund that should be done before 14.03.2021), so many follow ups forms both the opposite parties but they did not bothered to rectify or solve the problem, many times flipkart closed the complaint without intimating or any solution even registering the complaints on their systems. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                refund the amount of Rs.23,179 /- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of the above said T.V. i.e 14.10.019.

 b)                pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   opposite party No.1 had tried it best to solve the grievance of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty.   When the complainant raised his grievance of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty.  When the complainant raised his grievance with the answering opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 duly sent the expert technician to address of the complainant and the expert technician had duly inspected the product.  The expert technician informed the complainant as well as the opposite party No.1 that the product was not in repairable condition.  Thus as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty, the opposite party No.1 was ready to provide 90 percent of the cost as refund.  However, to the utter shock to the opposite party No.1, the complainant himself denied to get the refund as per the terms of extended warranty as was adamant to get the full cost as refund as well as compensation.  This was clearly against the extended warranty terms.  Therefore, his refund , request was cancelled.  Thus the present complaint had been filed on false facts and it clearly shows that the complainant was trying to extort illegal money from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the present complaint was nothing but specific and centric to the opposite party No.1 and the same was clear  from the bare reading of the present complaint.  The alleged extended warranty in the present complaint had been provided by the opposite party No.1 and the entire grievance of the complainant was against the opposite party No.1 only.  Thus the present complaint against the opposite party No.2 was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  The product was purchased from the third party seller who had sold the product to the complainant.  Further the extended warranty had been provided by  the opposite party No.1 and not by the opposite party NO.2 .  Further when the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 to raise his grievance, the opposite party No.2 duly informed the complainant that the manufacturing warranty on the product had been expired and duly requested the complainant to contact the opposite party No.1 as extended warranty had been provided by opposite party No.1 and not by the answering opposite party No.2.  Hence, in view of the above mentioned submissions, there was no cause of action against the opposite party No.2 as the dispute, if any was only between the complainant and the opposite party No.1, as the extended warranty had not been provided by the answering opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.2 merely operates an online platform and all the products on the platform were sold and supplied by independent third party seller.    Opposite party NO.2 had no role to play in the entire transaction of extended warranty entered between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4                 The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – M/s. Jeeves Service Center & Anr. with the prayer to: a)  refund the amount of Rs.23,179 /- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of the above said T.V. i.e 14.10.019.  b)   pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Jitender Kumar – complainant.

                   On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.OPW1/A – affidavit of Mr. Pradeep Reddy, s/o late  D. Sudarshan Reddy, Authorized  Signatory of opposite party No.1, Ex.OPW1/1 – Extended Warranty terms and conditions, OPW-2/1 – Press Note NO.3 (2016 series), Ex.OPW-2/II -  Flipkart Terms of use,

7.                During the course of arguments, proxy counsel Ms. Tanvi, counsel for opposite parties N os.1 & 2 ha made a statement that “we are ready to refund the invoice amount i.e. 80% as per the terms and conditions as mentioned in Clause-P o f  Extended Warranty Terms and conditions provided by opposite party No.1.”

8.                On the basis of the statement of  the proxy counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 to refund the 90% of the invoice amount  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.   There are no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  03.08.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.