DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 13/07/2021   

CC/101/2021

    Bindu

    W/o Ramadas, Kallingal House

    Cheraya Post, Kongad

Palakkad – 678 631                                                -         Complainant

(By Adv. K.P.Ramadasan)                           

V/s

1. Chief Executive Officer

    Flipkart Head Office, Brigade Gateway

    8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road

    Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore – 560 055

2. The Manager

    Flipkart, Palakkad Hub

    Ramanathapuram Gramam

    Palakkad – 678 014

3. The Sales Manager

    Mayur International 43, Nand Vihar

    Above Om Hospital, Jagatpura Road

Jaipur – 302 017                                                     -         Opposite parties

(All the opposite parties Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      Complainant purchased a mobile phone ‘Redmi Note 6’ for an amount of Rs.12,500/- through online from 1^st opposite party on 16/04/2021 and it was delivered on 22/04/2021.  1^st opposite party maintain the Flipkart website for online shopping of different products, 2^nd opposite party is the hub of 1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party is the seller of the product.

          On 22/04/2021, when the mobile was received by the complainant, she inserted SIM inside the mobile; but it was not working.  She immediately made request to the 1^st opposite party for returning the mobile and to refund its price.  The complainant did not use the mobile even for a moment.

          The opposite party sent a message to the complainant that they are unable to process refund request.  After that the complainant sent an online request for service and the 1^st opposite party send a technician to repair it.  After inspecting, he informed that it is software issue and cannot repair it.  The 1^st opposite party rejected the return request and stated complainant’s account in their website that ‘issues resolved’.  Thereafter they did not respond and closed the complaint without taking any further action to solve the issues in the phone.

          The ‘Redmi Note 6 Pro’ model mobile is having one year warranty and 6 months for accessories.

          The selling of defective phone and rejecting the return request and to refund the amount by the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part.  All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for this.

          Hence she approached this Commission for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 12,500/- being the price of the phone together with 8% interest and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of this proceedings.   

2.   Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Notice to 1^st opposite party returned unserved.  Notice was served on 2^nd opposite party.  But they did not appear or file version.  So they were set ex-parte.  Since notice was served on 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party has also notice.  Hence notice to 1^st opposite party dispensed with.  Notice issued in the address of 3^rd opposite party shown in invoice not seen returned.  Presumption availed and name called in open court and set ex-parte.

          Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext. A1 to A6 marked.  Heard.

3.   We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant.  The complainant’s grievance is that she ordered a mobile phone online through the website of Flipkart.  It was delivered to her on 22/04/2021 and she inserted the SIM inside the mobile, but the mobile was not working.  She immediately contacted the 1^st opposite party with a return request and to refund the amount.  But it was rejected and informed that they are unable to process refund request.  Later they send a technician.  He after inspecting told that it is a software problem and cannot repair it.

4.   Complainant produced the Tax Invoice dated 17/04/2021 showing the purchase of mobile phone ‘Redmi Note 6 Pro’ for an amount of Rs. 12,500/- which is marked as Ext. A1.  Ext. A2 to A4 are the copies of e-mails send between the complainant and 1^st opposite party.

          Ext. A4, the mail send by 1^st opposite party to complainant states “We are sorry.  We are unable to process the refund request”.

          Ext. A4 shows that the item was delivered on April 22^nd and return request was rejected on May 3^rd.  The reason stated by them is that “Cancelled on May 3 as issue resolved by trouble shooting”.

          From these Exhibits, it is clear that the phone which was delivered on 22^nd April had developed problems within a week and the complainant raised a return and refund request and the 1^st opposite party rejected it on 3^rd May.  They closed the complaint stating that the issue is resolved.  According to the complainant; the issue is not resolved and she could not use the mobile even for a moment.

5.   The complainant produced warranty card issued by opposite parties which is marked as Ext. A6.  The mobile phone is having a warranty of one year and 6 months for accessories.  Since the phone became defective within a week of its purchase and the complainant raised a return request, the opposite parties should have accepted it and refund the amount or rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The opposite parties failed to do this within the warranty period itself.  The opposite parties did not state any reason for rejection of return request. Further they did not adduce any evidence to show that the problems in the mobile phone were resolved.

          There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not replacing/rectifying the defect in the phone to the satisfaction of the customer.

6.   Even after the receipt of notice, the opposite parties did not appear or file their version.  Complainant has proved that she has a prima facie case.

7.   The complainant would have definitely undergone mental agony when he could not use the newly purchased mobile phone.  She had financial loss in purchasing the phone and additional expenses in filing this litigation.  The conduct of opposite parties had resulted in this and they are jointly and severally bound to compensate the complainant for that.

      In the result, the complaint is allowed;

      We direct the opposite parties

1. To refund Rs. 12,500/- being the cost of the phone together with interest @ 8% from the date of complaint (12/08/2021).
2. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.

Once the order is complied, the 2^nd opposite party is directed to collect the mobile phone from the complainant.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 27^th day of April, 2023.  

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                        Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President                                              

                                                               Sd/-

                   Vidya.A

                                  Member   

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                           Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                             Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Invoice dated 17/04/2021.

Ext. A2: Online chat details dated 28/04/2021.

Ext. A3: Online chat details dated 28/04/2021.

Ext. A4: Return rejection details dated 03/05/2021.

Ext. A5: Printout of warranty details.

Ext. A6: Original Catalog.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost- Rs. 5,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.