D.O.F:18/11/2021
D.O.O:20/04/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.211/2021
Dated this, the 20thday of April 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sangeetha. T.V,
W/o Rithuraj,
Mazhavillu, Chappayil,
Palakkunnu, : Complainant
P.O. Bekal,
Kasaragod,
Kerala – 671318
And
- Realme Mobile Tele Communications India Pvt.Ltd,
- rd floor tower B
Building No.8, DLF Cyber City,
Gurugram, Haryana- 122002
India
(Adv. MadhavanMalankad) : Opposite Paties
- Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd Buildings,
Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village,
Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village,
Bengaluru- 560103,
Karnataka, India
(Adv. A. Naveen Shankar)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased a TV from Flipkart on 09/09/2020 for Rs. 21,999/-. The aforesaid TV got a complaint on 06/08/2021 and complaint is registered in customer care. Technician from Realme examined the TV and informed that the panel got damaged and the company would send new panel and then he assured to repair the TV. After few weeks when the complainant contacted the customer care it is informed that the panel is already despatched. But the complainant not received the same. The complainant again contacted the customer care and she got the reply that the panel is not in stock and they offered a new TV. An agent of the company approached the complainant and taken back the TV on assurance that new TV would be supplied soon. Even after four months of waiting she again contacted customer care and earned a Rpass and purchased a TV for the online education of her child. Even though complimentary gift is offered by the opposite Parties, it is not given. Moreover she was constrained to pay cable rent for four months without functioning the TV. The irresponsible act of opposite Parties caused loss and mental agony to the complainant. For which she is seeking refund of the price of the TV with a compensation of RS.4,00,000/-.
No version is filed by Opposite Party No.1. The opposite part No.2 filed a lengthy written statement. According to them the complainant has not approached this Honorable commission with clean hands. In this case there is no expert opinion with complainant under section 38 of the act to show that the product in question has inherent defect due to manufacturing defect. The complainant has stated the false hood and tried to hide the real facts of the instant case in order to support her false claims. The complainant has given a replacement of the said product through Pass. She has been assured that if she faces any issues, she can let the Opposite Party to know about it. But the complainant never raised any issue regarding the product. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite Party. Asking for compensation even after replacement is not justified on the part of the complainant. There is no act or omission on the part of opposite party which comes under the unfair trade practices as defined under section 2 (45) of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the present complaint may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
The Opposite Party No.2 is an intermediary between the service providers and the customers. So Opposite Party No.2 does not incur any liability on the quality of the product. More over Section 5(1) of Consumer Protection rules 2020 also provides for exemptions to market places e-commerce entity under section 1 of section 79. According to them Flipkart is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of any contract entered into between buyers and sellers.That on record the above mentioned default of the complainant has wrongly arrayed this Opposite Party in the present matter and thus shall be dismissed. The complainant has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive to extract illegal compensation from the Opposite Party without any cause of action. It is clear that any technical issue with the TV is the liability of the manufacturer and this Opposite Party No.2 has no liability for the loss incurred by the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.2. The complaint is baseless and is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 specifically denies the allegation of deficiency in service. The burden to prove deficiency in service is on the complainant and she has failed to discharge the same. So the complainant is liable to dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as PW1. The documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 and A3. The issues raised for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issues No.1, 2, 3 can be discussed together.
Here the complainant purchased TV, from Opposite Party No.2 Flipkart on 09/09/2020, it became defective on 06/08/2021. The complainant registered complaint on customer care. The technician after examining the TV informed that the panel of the TV got damaged. The complainant made an order for the new panel and the technician offered to repair the TV as soon as the panel is received by the complainant. The complainant made all efforts to get a new panel from the company. After 4 months of waiting she earned an R pass and purchased a new TV. The complainant purchased the TV for the online education of her child due to covid pandemic. Due to the irresponsible act of Opposite Parties, the complainant’s child lost 4 months online class and the loss and agony suffered by the Complainant due to the latches on the part of Opposite Party is too.
The Complainant produced Ext.A1 and A2,Tax invoices of Opposite Party. Ext.A3 series are email communications between Complainant and Opposite Party. In Ext.A3 Opposite Parties apologizing to the Complainant for the inconveniences caused to her due to the delay on their part. While perusing the documents produced by the complainant her case tallies with the facts shows in Ext.A1 to A3 series.As per Ext.A1 to A3 there was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
The Complainant is entitled for relief. The Opposite Parties made the complainant to wait for 4 months to cure the defects of panel. During those months the complainant’s child could not attend online classes. Loss of online classes of the child caused several mental agony and loss to the complainant. The loss suffered by the complainant cannot be assessed in terms of money. The complainant is seeking refund of the price of the TV with a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. But she is using the TV now. After purchase of the second TV she did not raise any complaint regarding the functioning of the TV. So refund of the price of TV is not necessary in this case. The complainant’s claim for compensation is Rs.4,00,000/-, which iswithout any basis, nor supported by documentary evidence. It is true that she suffered in conveniences.
This Commission holds that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is reasonable Compensation in this case.
In the result complainant is partly allowed directing Opposite Parties to give a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Tax invoice dated 07/09/2020
A2: Tax invoice dated 18/09/2020
A3 series are Gmail communications
Witness Crossexamined
PW1: Sangeetha T.V
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
