3. The Commission issued notice to Opposite Parties after admission of complaint.
4. The O.P.No.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the present complaint is nothing but specific and centric to the O.P.No.2 for not providing the alleged complete TV protection plan services and the same is clear from the bare reading of the present complaint. The entire grievance of the complainant is with regard to the alleged non-repairing/after sale service of the product of the complainant by the O.P.No.2 covered under the complete TV protection plan. The O.P.No.1 has no role in the said transaction as the said complete TV protection plan has not been provided by the O.P.No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that irrespective of the warranty period by the manufacturer, as a good gesture the O.P.no.1 provides 10 days return/replacement policy to its customer in case where is any issue with the product which cannot be rectified. The role of the O.P.No.1 comes to an end once this 10 days replacement policy lapsed. The complaint is false, frivolous and misleading hence denied. It is clear from the above mentioned that the O.P.No.1 is not liable to provide relief of any sort to the complainant as the dispute, if any is only between the complainant and the O.P.No.2 as the complete protection plan has been provided by the O.P.No.2. Hence the O.P.No.1 is neither liable to provide any replacement nor any amount as refund, interest, compensation, cost nor any other relief to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
5. The O.P.No.2 filed written version through his advocate. The O.P.No.2 has tried it best to solve the grievance of the complainant in its capacity. When the complainant raised his grievance with the answering O.P. the O.P.No.2 duly sent the expert technician. The expert duly inspected the product of the complainant and found the product has physical damaged and is in irreparable state. Thus as per the complete protection plan terms and conditions, the answering O.P. was ready to provide fifty percent of the cost to the complainant. However to the utter shock to the O.P.No.2, the complainant himself denied to get the refund and even threatened he will file case in the consumer court. The O.P.No.2 was ready to provide refund for the product. The complainant himself is the wrongdoer in the instant matter and the present complaint has been filed on false facts and it clearly shows that’s the complainant is trying to extort illegal money from the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 is not liable to provide any relief asked by the complainant as the complainant himself blatantly denied the resolution provided by the O.P.No.2, when the O.P.No.2 contacted the complainant. Hence the relied claimed under the present complaint is not maintainable against the O.P.No.2. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the best interest of justice.
6. The O.P.No.3 & 4 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the O.P.No.3 & 4 herein are one and same legal entity and therefore a joint written statement is being filed on behalf of the O.P.No.3 and 4. The product was purchased from the third party seller, who had sold the product to the complainant. The complete protection plan has been provided by the O.P.No.2 and not by the O.P.No.3 and the complainant himself admitted this fact in the present complaint. Further when the complainant contacted the O.P.No.3 to raise his grievance, the same was duly escalated to the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.3 Flipkart Internet Private Limited is engaged, among others, in providing trading/selling facility over the internet through its website www.flipkart.com and mobile application. The O.P.No.3 is an online marketplace e-commerce entity as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. The complainant has failed to establish any cause of action under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, against the O.P.No.3 in the present complaint as the complainant himself is the wrongdoer in the instant matter, and hence, the relief claimed under the present complaint is not maintainable against the O.P.No.3. The relief claimed under the present complaint is untenable and unreasonable and the O.P.No.3 under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, is neither liable to provide any replacement nor any amount as refund, interest, compensation, costs or any other relief to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Hence the O.P.No.3 & 4 prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the best interests of justice.
7. On the date of hearing the advocate for the complainant and O.Ps are present. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record.
On analysis of evidence produced by both parties it is apparent from the written submissions of the O.Ps, the Expert Technician confirmed that the T.V. sustained physical damages but it was not explained in detail how it was happened in its Written Version and also not adduced in its evidence on affidavit. However, the ops confirmed it in their report that, said damages cannot be repairable. The findings of the Op no.2 amounts to accidental damages/liquid damages which was happened due to ‘functionality issue.’ It is manifests that the terms and conditions charter issued by the O.P.No.3 and 4 manufacturer of the TV to the O.P.No.1 to handover at the time of sale to the consumer with product. In the instant case the O.P.No.1 handover the Annexure-F to the complainant which was prepared by the O.P.No.3 & 4. The Annexure-F which was submitted by the complainant described about the refund of cost of TV in case of damage. For better appreciation it is reproduced below –
