IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
C.C.No. 31/2024
PRESENT
SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT
SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER
ORDER DATED: 30.10.2024
BETWEEN
Aswin P.Suku, 20 years,
S/o Sukumaran N.,
Plavila Veedu, Urukunnu P.O.,
Thenmala, Kollam 691307. : Complainant
AND
1. Savex Technologies Pvt.Ltd.,
E-11, Indian Corporation Compound,
Village Dive Anjur (Mumbai Nasik, Highway)
Taluka Bhiwandi, Thane, Bhiwandi 21302,
Maharashtra.
2. The Fire Boltt Customer Care Manager,
C/o Boltt Customer Care Department,
317-Platinum Techno Park, Sector-30 A,
Bhagwan Mahaveer Toad, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
400 703, Maharashtra.
ORDER
Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased an ear pod for ₹999 from the opposite parties' website, www.fireboltt.com, on 19.10.2023, and it was delivered on 22.10.2023. Thereafter one week the said ear pod had physical damage which was duly intimated to the opposite party. On 16.12.2023 the opposite parties collected the damaged ear pod from the complainant and assured that they would provide a brand new one as soon as possible. Thereafter the complainant received a smart watch instead of ear pod he purchased. Complainant informed the customer care of the opposite parties about the mistake. So the opposite parties collected the same. Subsequently there was no response from the opposite parties, even after complainant’s repeated requests. On 13.01.2024 complainant had a conversation with a customer care agent who told his name in difference manner and insulted the complainant. The complainant had purchased the product by paying Rs.999/-. The complainant is a consumer and he has availed the product from the opposite parties by paying the consideration which the opposite parties demanded. It has been three months since the complainant has ordered for the AirPods, which were priced at ₹999. So far, neither a refund has been issued, nor has the item been delivered. The conduct of the opposite parties amounts to clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore the complainant seeks adequate compensation from the opposite parties.
Notice has been issued to the opposite parties and they failed to appear before the Commission and nor filed their versions and hence they were set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits P1 to P8. has were marked. Exhibit.P1 is the tax invoice issued from the Savex technologies Pvt.Ltd. for the purchase of ear pod dated 19.10.2023. Exhibit P2 is email communication by the complainant to the opposite party. Exhibit P3 is the reply email issued by the opposite parties. Exhibit P4 to P8 are the email communications by the opposite parties to the complainant.
The complainant appeared in person to conduct the case and provided evidence that he is a student currently studying in a Polytechnic course at Ezhukone, Kollam. Due to this complaint, he has been required to miss classes and has been unable to participate in placement training. The complainant originally purchased an ear pod from the opposite parties, which was damaged shortly after purchase. The opposite parties collected the defective ear pod and assured the complainant that a new replacement would be provided. However, instead of the promised ear pod, a smartwatch was delivered, which was later collected by the opposite parties following the complainant's notification. Despite multiple assurances, the opposite parties failed to replace the ear pod.
It is clear that the complainant acted in good faith, relying on the representations made by the opposite parties. As a result, he has been unjustly deprived of the promised product. Additionally, the opposite parties were set ex parte due to their failure to file their version. The opposite parties failed to cross-examine the complainant with relevant documents. Consequently, the affidavit submitted by the complainant remains unchallenged. The complainant, a diploma student, has faced significant academic disruption due to his pursuit of this complaint.
Upon evaluating all materials on record, it is evident that the opposite parties failed to meet their obligations in providing the ear pod. This constitutes a deficiency in service, establishing the validity of the complaint. Therefore, based on the presented evidence, it can be concluded that the complainant has successfully established his case and is entitled to the relief sought.
In the interest of justice and considering the complainant's circumstances, the complaint is allowed. Taking into consideration of the impact on this young student’s rights as a consumer, we order as follows: The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.999/- paid for the purchase of the ear pod with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 17-01-2024 until realization along with an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the losses suffered and Rs.1000/- as costs of the proceedings. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S.transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of October 2024.
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Document marked for the complainant:-Nil
Ext.P1 : Tax Invoice
Ext.P2 : Email communication
Ext.P3 : Reply email
Ext.P4 : Email communication
Ext.P5 : Email communication
Ext.P6 : Email communication
Ext.P7 : Email communication
Ext.P8 : Email communication
Witness Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT