DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member
Date of filing: 04/06/23
CC/148/2023
Rohit P R - Complainant
Pacheerithodi
Sreekrishnapuram P.O
Palakkad
(Party in person)
V/s
One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opposite Party
Ast. Mile 417, Bussa Udyog Bhavan
T J Road, Sewri West Mumbai,
Maharastra, 400015.
(Ex-parte).
O R D E R
Prepared by Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member
- Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a three year complete Appliance Protection plan from the opposite party on payment of Rs 1499/- for the Nokia TV purchased through the online platform of Flipkart for Rs 15846/- on 26/09/22. On 01.05.23 the TV got damaged by an accidental fall. Though the matter was duly reported to the opposite party for availing the coverage under the protection plan they denied the claim stating that the damage was total loss and exceeded coverage limits specified in the policy. When the issue was escalated to the higher authorities of the opposite party company they finally agreed to settle the claim for Rs 6948/- being the 50% of the invoice value.
Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Commission seeking replacement of the damaged TV apart from compensation for financial and mental agony.
- Notice was issued to the opposite party. They did not enter appearance, hence was set ex-parte.
- The complainant filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ext A1 to A4 as evidence. Ext A1 is the tax invoice of the TV purchased, A2 is the tax invoice for the complete Appliance Protection Plan availed from the opposite party, A3 is copies of the photographs of the damaged TV and A4 is the e-mail from the opposite party making the final offer for Rs 6948/-
- In the absence of version, Proof Affidavit and documentary evidence from the side of opposite party, we are constrained to draw conclusion on the basis of the Proof Affidavit filed and documents marked by the complainant. Ext A1 is the tax invoice issued by M/s consulting Rooms Pvt.Ltd for the TV purchased clearly showing that the product is having one year warranty and the manufacturer is bound by the same. The present case is that of total damage caused by a fall, the claim has to be settled by the opposite party under the Total Protection Plan issued by them. In this context Ext A4 is the most relevant evidence in this case, which is an e-mail communication from the opposite party approving the claim for Rs 6948/-. Though the claim has been assessed and approved as total loss, the basis of taking 50% of the invoice value for calculation of the claim amount permitted, has not been properly explained or supported by any documentary evidence. Further as the incident has happened within one year of purchase the depreciation shown in the calculation is zero. Hence, as the total loss has been assessed and approved by the opposite party, they are bound to replace the product or to refund the entire cost and denial of this is to be termed as Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practice. Thus the complainant has proved a prima facie case.
- As a prima facie case is proved against the OP as above, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.
(1) The opposite party is directed to refund the entire cost of the TV Rs 15846/- along with interest @ 10% from 26/09/22 till the date of payment.
(2) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss.
(3). The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs 5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of December, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N K
Member
