Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/633/2023

DANOJ KUMAR. P.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER IN CHARGE, FROOTILE INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Wednesday the 31^st day of January 2024

C.C.633/2023

Complainant

 

Danoj Kumar. P.K,

S/o Choyi,

Purayidath Kandy(HO),

Elathur (PO),

S K Bazar, Kozhikode – 673 303.

Opposite Parties

​

        1.      The Manager in Charge,
                 Frootile India Pvt Ltd,   

                 15th cross road, off 27^th Main road,

                 1^st sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore,

Karnataka- 560 102.

2.        The Manager in Charge,

 Ecovac India Pvt Ltd,

713, 3^rd cross road, HRBR Layout,

Kalyan Nagar,

Bangalore, Karnataka – 560043.

                                                                                   ORDER

 

By.Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The second opposite party is the manufacturer and service provider of Ecovacs Deebot U2 Pro 2in 1 Robotic Vacuum Cleaner with mopping. The first opposite party is the seller. On 03/11/2022 the complainant purchased the said robotic vacuum cleaner paying Rs. 14,990/-. The purchased was made through Amazon. The warranty card was neither attached with the packing no served to the complainant.

3. After a few days, the robotic vacuum cleaner showed complaint and on 24/04/2023 the complaint was reported to the second opposite party and it was repaired changing the main board fully free of cost under warranty. But it again showed complaint on 09/07/2023 and it was reported to the second opposite party. But after 2 days the machine started working and so the complaint registered was closed by the second opposite party. But on 15/11/2023 the machine again showed complaint and was not working properly. The complaint was informed to the second opposite party who asked the complainant to show the video of the working of the machine through video call. Thereafter the second opposite party informed that the machine could be repaired, for which, the complainant had to pay repairing charges in addition to Rs. 2,500/- for pickup and drop in. The opposite parties were not ready to replace the product or to allow buy back.
4. The machine has got a latent defect. The opposite parties have denied the service facility. They ought to have taken back the machine and replaced with a fresh one. On 27/11/2023 a lawyer notice was issued to the opposite parties, but it evoked no response. The complainant has lost faith in the product and he is entitled to get back the money spent for the product. He had sustained loss. He is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/. Hence the complaint.
5. The notice issued from this Commission on 06/01/2024 was duly served on the opposite parties. But they did not respond to the notice and hence set ex-parte.   
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

7. PW1 was examined and  Exts A1 to A7 were marked .
8. Heard.   
9. Point No 1:    The complainant, who was examined as PW1, has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of invoice dated 03/11/2022, Ext A2 is the postal receipt, Ext A3 is the copy of the tracking of registered post, Ext A4 is the unserved postal article, Exts A5 to A7 are the screen shorts of whatsapp communication.
10.  The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. They have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of repair of the robotic vacuum cleaner with mopping stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A7.
11. PW1 has sought for refund of the purchase price of the product amounting to Rs. 14,990/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. To establish the claim for replacement of the product or refund of the price, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert that the machine suffered from any inherent manufacturing defect.  It is seen that there is absolutely nothing to show that the machine is having any manufacturing defect. The complainant in this case has failed to place on record any technical/expert report to show that the product is having any inherent manufacturing defect so as to justify the claim for refund of the price. In these circumstances, the prayer for refund of the price of the product is not allowable.
12. But it is in evidence that there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in addressing the concerns of the complainant and in repairing the machine. The opposite parties are bound to repair the machine and make it in a sound working condition.   Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has resulted in gross mental agony and hardship to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
13. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

a)  CC.633/2023 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair the Ecovacs Deebot U2 Pro 2in 1 Robotic Vacuum Cleaner with mopping sold to the complainant as per Ext A1 and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant shall not be required to pay any charges for the said repair.

c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered.

d) The payment shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

e)  No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31^th day of January, 2024.

Date of Filing: 19/12/2023

 

          Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

       PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                        MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Copy of invoice dated 03/11/2022,

Ext A2 - Postal receipt,

Ext A3 - Copy of the tracking of registered post,

Ext A4 -  Unserved postal article,

Exts A5 -  Screen shorts of whatsapp communication.

Exts A6 -  Screen shorts of whatsapp communication.

Exts A7 -  Screen shorts of whatsapp communication.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties

NIL

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -     Danoj Kumar. P.K  (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite party

 Nil

 

 

      

           Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

       PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                        MEMBER

                                                                    

 True copy,

                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                   Assistant Registrar