DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 24^th day of April 2024.

                                                                   Filed on: 04/08/2021

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                               Member

C.C No. 254/2021

COMPLAINANT

Jayesh K G Karuthedathu house Alinchuvadu, Pindimana P.Ο, Kothamangalam, Pin-686 692 Ernakulam Dist., Kerala.

(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)

Vs

Opposite Parties

1. M/s Realme Watch 3rd Floor, Toer-B, Building No.8 DLF Cyber City, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 Represented by its Managing Director

(op1 rep. by Adv.Suraj John Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District)

2.       M/s F1 Dot it solutions vii/528C9, 2^nd  Floor, Pulimoottil Pioneer Complex Near Private Bus Stand, Thodupuzha-685584

3.       M/S F1-Cochin Ground Floor, Angels Arcade Cheruparambath Road Kadavanthra, Kochi-682 020 Represented by its Managing Director

(Ops 2 and 3 rep. by Adv.N.s Ajay,Prudence Attorney’s Fathima Plaza, providence Road, Ernakulam)

4.       G-Hub Near Ann Theatre, College Road Kothamangalam-686666

.F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, involves a consumer who bought a Realme RMA161 Smartwatch for Rs. 3000 on January 14, 2021. The watch, under a one-year warranty, began malfunctioning five months post-purchase, exhibiting issues like automatic power-offs and restarts. The consumer sought repairs from authorized service centres (named as the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in the complaint), but the watch was returned unrepaired due to an alleged dent, which the consumer disputes. Both service centres ultimately refused to repair the watch, blaming the alleged dent despite the absence of such a claim in the initial service report from the third service centre.

The complaint stated that the smartwatch's malfunction is a manufacturing defect and accuses the manufacturer and service centers of unfair trade practices by denying warranty service under false pretenses. The consumer, claiming severe hardship and mental agony due to the inability to use the watch, seeks a refund of Rs. 3000 with 12% annual interest, plus Rs. 100,000 compensation for the inconvenience and alleged unfair practices. The complaint asks the commission to grant these requests along with covering the costs of the proceedings.

2) Notice

The commission sent notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 subsequently appeared and submitted their versions. However, opposite party no. 4 did not file their version and was set as ex parte

3) THE VERSION OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY

The Opposite Party No. 1, strongly denies all accusations made in the consumer complaint. They claim that the complaint is inconsistent with the facts, and nothing should be accepted unless specifically admitted by them. They describe the complaint as meritless, vexatious, and an abuse of the legal process, intended to harass and humiliate them. It is stated that the complaint is built on false assumptions and selectively presented facts designed to cast them in a negative light.

The Opposite Party accuses the complainant of not approaching the commission with clean hands, alleging that the complainant withheld facts and distorted information, disentitling them from seeking relief. They state that under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, liability would only arise under specific conditions such as manufacturing defects or inadequate instructions, none of which have been proven by the complainant.

The Opposite Party No. 1 assert that the smartwatch was out of warranty due to physical damage (a dent), confirmed by their technical team and allegedly acknowledged by the complainant in the job sheet, which disqualifies the complainant from any warranty claims. They counter specific paragraphs of the complaint by denying the allegations and accusing the complainant of fabricating a story to support false claims.

They reference judgments by the Supreme Court to state that complaints without a legitimate cause of action should be dismissed outright. The Opposite Party No. 1 requested the dismissal of the complaint, stating it is baseless and merely an attempt to tarnish the Opposite Party's reputation. They ask the forum to dismiss the complaint, award them the costs of the proceedings, and grant any other orders deemed appropriate under the circumstances. They contend that the complainant is not entitled to any relief, either legally or equitably.

THE VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 & 3.

The Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3, deny all allegations made in the complaint. They stress that they are a single entity responding collectively and that the complaint is based on false stories and is not maintainable. F1 Info Solutions & Services describes itself as a company that provides after-sale services for various electronic, electrical, and IT products, acting as an independent third-party service provider without any direct sales or manufacturing of products.

They clarify that their role is strictly limited to providing services under the terms set by manufacturers or sellers and that they do not offer warranties themselves. The complaint does not involve a direct contractual relationship with them, as the complainant purchased the product through an online platform from an independent seller. They note that the product brought for repair by the complainant was physically damaged, which is outside their service terms, leading them to refuse service.

They further stated that there is no deficiency in their services and that they are not engaged in any unfair trade practices. They state that no dispute justifiable under the Consumer Protection Act has arisen with them.

In their detailed response, they maintain that the complainant's claims are false and manipulated, particularly noting that they had no role in the sale or manufacture of the product in question. They emphasize that they are not liable for any defects or are required to provide any relief to the complainant.

They conclude by requesting the Commission to dismiss the complaint against them and award them costs for the proceedings. They insist that the complainant has not established a cause of action that would warrant any relief under the Consumer Protection Act.

4) . Evidence

The complainant filed a proof affidavit along with four documents, which were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4:

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the retail invoice dated January 14, 2021.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of the warranty card.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the repair order dated July 2, 2021, issued by the 2nd opposite party.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the repair order dated July 14, 2021, issued by the 3rd opposite party.

The opposite parties 1 and  2,  filed a proof affidavit along with two documents, which were marked as Exhibits B-1& B-2.

Exhibit B-1:The copy of the pictures of the device

Exhibit B-2: The copy of the job sheet.

The opposite party no. 3 also filed a proof affidavit.

5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

ii)       If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv)      Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)       The issues mentioned above are considered together and     answered as follows:

        In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  Copy of the retail invoice dated January 14, 2021. (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.

               The present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Parties (OPs). The complainant, having purchased a Realme RMA161 Smartwatch, faced multiple issues with the device which were not satisfactorily addressed by the OPs.

The argument note filed by the complainant's counsel, Sri.Tom Joseph, in support of the consumer complaint:

1. Defective Product: The complaint centres on a smartwatch sold by the opposite parties, which developed a defect within five months of purchase, leading to automatic power-offs and restarts.
2. Documented Issues: The problems with the watch are documented in Exhibits A3 and A4, which are repair orders from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, respectively.
3. Evidence Presented: The evidence from the complainant includes Exhibits A1 to A4, detailing the purchase, warranty, and attempts to repair the watch. The opposite parties have submitted Exhibits B1 and B2 in their defence.

The complainant had prodused the watch to this commission for verification. Since there was no visible physical damage, including a dent, in the watch, the rejection of warranty coverage amounts to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

4. Contestation of Damage: The opposite parties have argued that the watch was damaged (a dent), which they claim voids the warranty. However, no mention of this dent is found in Exhibit A4 from July 14, 2021, undermining their argument.
5. Physical Inspection of the Watch: The complainant is presenting the watch to the commission for verification to prove that there is no visible physical damage, including the alleged dent.
6. Claims of Unfair Practice: The complainant argues that the denial of warranty service, despite the lack of documented physical damage, constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The complainant requests that the commission uphold the complaint based on the evidence and circumstances presented, highlighting the lack of justification for the warranty denial.

Written Arguments on Behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 Represented by Advocate Sri. Ajay N.S

1. Company Profile and Services: Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 operates as a comprehensive service provider for electronic, electrical, and IT products. Known for their cost-effective and reliable solutions, F1 Info Solutions is a preferred troubleshooting partner for over a million households. They also offer post-sale support such as installation and repair services during and after the warranty period for various products including electronics, furniture, and bicycles, to major brands and retail outlets.

2.Role and Responsibilities: Opposite Party No. 2 functions as an independent third-party service provider offering after-sale services. They neither manufacture nor sell products directly nor do they offer any warranties or guarantees beyond those provided by the original manufacturers or sellers.

3. Legal Claim Regarding Dispute: It is argued that no legitimate dispute has arisen under the Consumer Protection Act between the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2, as no deficiency in service has been proven.

4. Details of the Incident: The complainant purchased a product through an online platform from an independent seller, with no involvement from Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 in the transaction. The complainant later brought the damaged product to the Opposite Party for repair, but the damage was due to physical mishandling by the complainant, which is not covered by the service terms. As such, Opposite Party No. 2 declined to provide repair services.

5. Warranty and Service Provision: Opposite Party No. 2 adheres to the warranty terms set by the product's manufacturer or seller. They do not issue their warranties and are not responsible for any defects in products they neither sold nor manufactured.

6. Judicial Precedent: The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on 'SGS India Ltd. vs Dolphin International Ltd.' (Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009, dated 06.10.2021), affirmed that the burden of proving a deficiency in service lies with the complainant. This decision sets a precedent that without concrete evidence of service deficiency, Opposite Party No. 2 cannot be deemed responsible.

7. Evidence and Burden of Proof: It is highlighted that the initial burden of proof rests with the complainant, who must substantiate the claims of service deficiency. If this is not achieved, the claim lacks foundation and cannot proceed.

Given the above arguments and legal references, it is contended that the complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed, as the complainant has not demonstrated any deficiency in service from Opposite Party No. 2 & 3. Consequently, Opposite Party No. 2 is neither liable to provide any product nor compensation to the complainant under the stipulated conditions of the Consumer Protection Act.

           The 4^th opposite party's conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party no.4.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant against the opposite party no.4. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

                 We have carefully heard the submission made at length by the learned Counsel representing both parties and have also considered the entire evidence on record.

A. Facts of the Case:

The complainant purchased the smartwatch on January 14, 2021. Within five months, the device began malfunctioning, which included automatic power-offs and restarts. Despite being under warranty, repair attempts by authorized service centres (OP No. 2 and 3) were unsuccessful, with service being denied over an alleged dent that was not initially reported.

B. Evidence Presented:

The complainant provided the purchase invoice, warranty card, and repair orders from OP No. 2 and OP No. 3 as Exhibits A1 to A4, which documented the purchase and subsequent service attempts. The Opposite Parties presented photographs and a job sheet indicating physical damage as Exhibits B1 and B2.

The complainant has presented the watch to this commission for inspection. As there is no observable physical damage, including the alleged dent, on the watch, the refusal to honour the warranty constitutes both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

C. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

Under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, deficiency in service means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract with a consumer.

The key issue revolves around the alleged dent claimed by OP No. 2 and OP No. 3 as a basis for denying warranty service. Notably, the initial repair order (Exhibit A4) issued by OP No. 3 does not mention such a dent. The subsequent denial based on this unrecorded dent characterizes a significant deficiency in service and possibly an unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2 (47) of the Act, which includes adopting any deceptive method or practice for the purpose of selling goods or rendering services.

                 Upon careful review of the evidence, the Commission observes that the Opposite Parties have failed to conclusively prove that the alleged dent was the cause of the malfunction or that it existed at the time of the initial service request. Therefore, the refusal to service the watch under warranty terms appears unjustified and constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

              The Opposite Parties are held responsible for fulfilling their duties as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which reaffirms the entitlement of consumers to depend upon the warranties and after-services offered by manufacturers and service providers. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon service providers to honour their warranty commitments, unless they can provide clear and justifiable grounds for denial, which must be disclosed at the time of the initial inspection.

                 We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

I.        The Opposite Parties shall refund the price of the smartwatch to the complainant, a sum of ₹3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only), as substantiated by Exhibits A-1.

II.       The Opposite Parties shall pay compensation of ₹40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant for the service deficiency, unfair trade practices, inconvenience, and the consequent mental distress and hardship suffered by the complainant.

III.      The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant ₹10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to cover the costs incurred during these proceedings.

The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the fulfillment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Should there be a failure to comply within the stipulated period, the amounts detailed in Points I and II will accrue interest at an annual rate of 9%, starting from the expiration of the 45 days until the date of realization, calculated from the date of filing the case (04.08.2021).

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this  24^th day of April 2024.

Sd/-                  

D.B.Binu, President

                                                                     Sd/-                  

                                                V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                   Sd/-                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

/by Order

tant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the retail invoice dated January 14, 2021.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of the warranty card.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the repair order dated July 2, 2021, issued by the 2nd opposite party.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the repair order dated July 14, 2021, issued by the 3^rd  opposite party.

The opposite parties’ Exhibits

Exhibit B-1:The copy of the pictures of the device

Exhibit B-2: The copy of the job sheet.

uk

Date of Despatch   ::

By Hand                :: By Post