DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.07.2023
Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, President:
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant purchased one unit of V U Premium smart 125 cm (49 inch ) full HD LED smart T.V. online on 18.08.2018 for Rs.28,499/- vide Invoice No.FABPCS 1900037422 dated 20.08.2018. The service of the product was initially scheduled on 30.08.2018 which involved both installation and Demo by the Authorized Service Engineer. It was agreed by the complainant for installation of the T.V. on 02.09.2018 being Sunday which was cancelled since the service provider did not turned up. As per telephonic instructions by the O.P.No.1 & 2 the installation of the T.V. was rescheduled to 5.30P.M. of 04.09.2018 but the technical persons of O.P.No.3 left without installation. It is found that the technical persons unlocked the T.V., laid it on the sofa, put it on power source at the other hand, checked it as O.K. repacked in the box and said installation was not complete and reported to the Company that, he would visit again for installation. Surprisingly, the complainant found one message sent by the O.P.No.1 that the T.V. has been installed to the satisfaction and the service involving the T.V. was completed, though actually the TV was not installed. The O.P. No.2 the authorized vendor sent one warranty card in e-mail I.D connoting that the service was completed and they would be happy to provide an extended warranty free of any charges for replacement. It was also mentioned that the set could be used at any time within five months from the date of purchase. The Opposite Parties confirmed the installation without its really being installed. The complainant purchased one T.V. entertainment unit worth Rs. 12,990/- from Royal Oak Corporation. On 13.09.2018 and for installation of the unit and permanent power source it took time till 10.10.2018. On 11.10.2018 the T.V. was installed believing the T.V. is OK as confirmed by the O.Ps and it was noticed that at the bottom right corner of the TV there was a tiny spot which was seen as dust particulars sticking to the labeling mark of the seller which could easily come off. The complainant wiped using fore finger and the T.V. started showing crack from the center and the picture was reduced to half, hence the TV was switched off and after some time restarted. It was observed that the cracks spread to all other parts of the TV and there was no picture or sound. On 12.10.2018 the complainant narrated the details over phone to the O.P.No.1 who advised to contact O.P.No.3 and accordingly when the O.P.No.3 was contacted and on 21.10.2018 it was advised to contact O.P.No.2. Ultimately, the TV purchased for Rs.28,499/- is hopelessly kept idle without any use by the complainant. All the aforesaid narrations in the complaint goes to show that one damaged T.V. has been sent online by the O.P.No.1 and 2 by accepting the value of Rs.28,499/- which leads to unfair trade practice. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to take away the damaged/defective T.V. set with invoice dated 20.08.2018, refund of Rs.28,499/-, compensation of Rs.30,000/-, and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P. No.2 and 3 neither appeared nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P.No.2 & 3 were declared exparte on dated 17.10.2019. The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written version through his advocate.
4. The O.P. No.1 admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased one unit of Y.U premium smart TV dated 18.08.2018 for Rs.28,499/-. The product was purchased through O.P.No.1 and from independent third party seller and same is evident from copy of tax invoice. The O.P.No.1 is merely an intermediary which provides online platform to the independent third party seller whereby which they list, advertise, offer for sale and sell their respective products and same is delivered by third party logistic service provider. The O.P.No.1 has never advertised or induced the complainant for any product. The O.P. No.1 is no where associated with the seller, manufacturer, authorized service center or logistic service provider. In para No.2 & 3 except which is a matter of record, is false, fabricated and denied out-rightly. The said product was initially scheduled on 30.08.2018 and complainant agreed to install the same on 02.09.2018 to which the service provider did not turned up is false, fabricated and presented here in manipulative manner and thus denied. The true facts of this case are that the complainant had the said installation done by unauthorized 3rd party in violation of the seller replacement warranty. The O.P.No.1 being an intermediary has duly forwarded the same to the concerned seller and the concerned seller has rejected the complainant replacement request as complainant had got the installation done from 3rd party which in clear terms was violation of its replacement policy. Hence, the complainant had lost his right to replace or refund the said product from the seller and thus any grievance subsequent to said policy is a matter of manufacturer warranty. The O.P.No.1 being an intermediary has duly informed the same fact to the complainant and advised him to approach the O.P.No.3. Hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1 at the first instance. The para No.4 so far as the O.P.No.2 sent one year warranty period is a matter of record. The content pertaining to extended warranty and usage of 5 years of said product is denied due to want of knowledge. The Para No.5 in so far as the O.Ps confirmed the installation have been presented herein manipulative manner and thus denied out-rightly. Further, the complainant purchased a TV entertainment unit worth Rs. 12,990/- from Royal Oak Corp and its installation took time till 10.10.2018 is denied due to want of knowledge. The O.P.No.1 is merely an intermediary and it has limited role of providing the online platform to the independent third party seller. The O.P.No.1 has duly suggested the complainant to approach the O.P.No.3 as same has become the matter of manufacturer warranty period. Any grievance which the complainant has is only against the manufacturer and its authorized service center. Hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed against the O.P.No.1.
5. On the date of hearing of the case, we heard learned counsel for the advocate for complainant and O.P.No.1. We perused the complaint petition, written version and written argument and the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. During the warranty period the T.V was found defective. On 12.10.2018 the complainant narrated the details over phone to the O.P.No.1 who advised to contact O.P.No.3 and accordingly when the O.P.No.3 was contacted and on 21.10.2018 it was advised to contact O.P.No.2. Ultimately, the T.V. purchased for Rs.28,499/- is hopelessly kept idle without any use by the complainant.
6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant during the warranty period. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The Hon’ble National Commission laid down the guidelines in Jindlal Dealing And Industries v. Indocon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 3 (2006) CPJ 264 NC that, “that there was fault in the product when it was in warranty period so the complainant is a “consumer” under COPRA, 1986 and the opposite party failed to redress the complaints for repair within the warranty period so opposite party was ordered to pay Rs.30, 29, 477.”
7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the complainant has repeatedly requested to O.Ps for repairing or replacement of his defective T.V. due to problem during warranty/guarantee period but the O.Ps failed to take any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally for which he is to be compensated. Further the complainant is also entitled to get cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Commission and has incurred expenses attending the case. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award compensation as well as litigation cost in favour of the complainant. .
In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the cost of the defective T.V.set i.e. Rs.28,499/- together with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realisation and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. The complainant is also directed to return the defective T.V. set to the O.Ps.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 06.07.2023
