Kerala

Kottayam

CC/243/2021

Rama Sreekumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Real Me - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2023

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam
Kottayam
 
Complaint Case No. CC/243/2021
( Date of Filing : 21 Oct 2021 )
 
1. Rama Sreekumar
Sree Shailam, Kalathur P O Kottayam. Pin.686633
Kottayam
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Real Me
3rd floor, Tower B, Building No.8, DLF Cyber City, Girugram. Hariyana. Pin.122002
2. Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.
Building Alyssa, Begonia and clove Embassy Tech Village, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Banglore, Karnataka.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. V.S. Manulal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bindhu R MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. K.M.Anto MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 28th day of January 2023

 

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

 

C C No. 243/2021 (Filed on 21-10-2021)

 

Petitioner                                            :         Rema Sreekumar

                                                                   Sree Sailam

                                                                   Kalathoor P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam – 686633

 

                                                                             Vs.

Opposite parties                                 :  (1)  Realme

                                                                   3rd Floor, Tower B,

                                                                   Building No.8

                                                                   DLF Cyber City, Gurugram,

                                                                   Hariyana – 122002

                                                                   (Adv. Nikhildev M.)

         

                                                              (2)  Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.

                                                                   Building Alyssa,

                                                                   Begonia and Clove Embassy

                                                                   Tech village, Devarabeesanahalli

                                                                   Village, Banglore,

 Karnata – 560103

(Adv. Rayin K.R.)                                                                    

 

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

          The case of the complainant is that he had bought a Realme TV on                           20-09-2020 for an amount of Rs.22,999/- through the 2nd opposite party, which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party.  The display of the said TV was damaged on 19-06-2021.  The complainant had registered a complaint with the 1st opposite party on 20-06-2021 and the customer care of the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that they had registered a complaint with them.  On 26-03-2021 a technician from the 1st opposite party had called and enquired about the complaint and directed the complainant to send a video of the TV in whatsapp.  When the complainant contacted after a weak, the customer care of the 1st opposite party informed that the TV will be replaced.  When the complainant called again, she was told that the replacement has not approved and delay would take further 2 weeks.  When the complainant contacted on 06-09-2021, the technician told her that he had disassociated with the 1st opposite party and so directed her to register again another complaint with the 1st opposite party.  When the complainant contacted customer care of the 1st opposite party, it was informed that as there is delay, her case has been referred to higher authority, another technician would call her within 48 hours.  Thereafter when she contacted the customer care of the 1st opposite party, she was again informed that a technician would call her within 48 hours.  On 02-10-2021 the complainant was informed that the TV cannot be repaired and further the amount would be refundable and the higher authority would call her in 48 hrs.  Thereafter, when the complainant contacted the customer care of the 1st opposite party, it was informed that there would not any refund but a technician would call and rectify the defect.  However the defect is not cured yet.  According to the complainant, the above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and caused much hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying an Order to direct the opposite party either to repair the TV or to refund Rs.22,999/- and to pay compensation of Rs.5,644/- along with 600/- as cost of litigation.

          Upon notice, opposite party appeared before this Commission and filed separate version.

          It is admitted by the 1st opposite party  that the complainant had purchased a Realme 108cm 43 inch Full HD LED Smart Android TV.  In order to address the issue of the complainant and continuous support has been offered to the complainant.  The 1st opposite party  interalia, engaged in the business of trading, distribution, marketing of mobile handsets and equipment and incidental accessories including consumer electronics and gadgets thereof under the brand “realme” and is widely acclaimed for its class and quality.  The devise sold by the 1st opposite party pass through the stringent quality checks before the products being available in the market.  The 1st opposite party has never delayed service to the complainant as such whenever the complaint was received, the 1st opposite party had provided the service to the complainant.  It is averred in the version that the complainant who has not co-operated and team of the 1st opposite party has contacted complainant several times for refund processing and further the complainant was not contacted,  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.

          The 2nd opposite party filed version contenting as follows.

          The complainant had bought a TV manufactured by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party.  The 2nd opposite party acted as an intermediary and has been in business with high reputation and reliability.  The complainant had used the TV in a rash and unsafe manner and it is only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the complainant that the TV has the defect.  The TV is of high quality and there is no manufacturing defect in any  sort.  Hence TV will not be covered under the conditions of the warranty and hence this cannot be refunded.  There is no deficiency in service on part of the 2nd opposite party and complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. 

          Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant.  Gaurav Sachdeva, who is the authorised representative of the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Sheetal Tiwari, who is the legal counsel of the 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  No documentary evidence from the side of the 1st and 2nd opposite party.

          On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider following points.

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
  2. If so, what are the reliefs?

Point No.1 and 2

     There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a Realme 108cm 43 inch Full HD LED Smart Android TV from the website of the 2nd opposite party for Rs.22,999/- on 20-09-2020, which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party.  According to the complainant, the panel of the said TV became defective on 20-06-2020.  It is proved by Ext.A1 tax invoice that the complainant had paid Rs.22,999/- towards the price of the  Realme 108cm 43 inch Full HD LED Smart Android TV on 20-09-2020,  On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that there is a warranty of one year for the TV and domestic warranty for 2 years on panel.  It is further proved by Ext.A1 that the complainant had paid Rs.500/- for the installation and demo of the said TV.  Thus it is clear that the defect of the said TV occurred during the warranty coverage offered by the 1st opposite party, who is the manufacturer of the TV.  According to the complainant, though she had made several complainants with customer care of the 1st opposite party they did not cure the defect of the TV.  It is averred by the complainant that inspite of rectifying the defect of the TV, the 1st opposite party tried to evade from the liability under warranty raising some or mere excuses.  In the version as well as the proof affidavit, the 1st opposite party submitted that the 1st opposite party is ready to provide the refund to the complainant with the condition that the complainant provided the defective TV to the 1st opposite party.  According to the 1st opposite party, the complainant is not co-operating with the 1st opposite party to resolve the grievances of the complainant.  However the 1st opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that they informed the complainant that they were ready to refund price of TV to the complainant.   Hence we are of the opinion that the non-rectifying of the defect of the TV or non-refund of the price of TV which was under the coverage of warranty offered by the 1st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party.  No doubt that the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the 1st opposite party.  Therefore, we allow the complaint and pass the following Order.

  1. We hereby direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.22,999/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 21-10-2021, ie. the date on which the complaint is filed till realization.
  2. We hereby direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and to pay Rs.600/- as cost of litigation.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.  If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of January, 2023

Sri. Manulal V.S. President   Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member       Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member        Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Copy of invoice and warranty card

A2 – Copy of sms

A3 – Copy of e-communication between complainant and Realme company

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                               

 

 

By Order

 

                                                                                                               Assistant Registrar

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. V.S. Manulal]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Bindhu R]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. K.M.Anto]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.