DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 22 OF 2021
Sri Subham Dash,aged about 22 years,
S/O-Sri Sunil Dash resident of village Amrut Bihar,
Jail Road,Po-Keonjhargarh,PS-Keonjhar town Dist-Keonjhar,
Odisha-758001,Phone No 7008752770..................................................Complainant
Versus
1.The Manager,Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited,
At-ABW Tower,6th Floor,Near IFFCO Chowk,MG Road,Gurugaon,Haryana-122002.
2.The Manager Luminary Life style private Limited,
Unit No 4 Fourth Floor, Fantcy Square, Door No-2-1/6/FS/IV/4.
Gachibowli, Hydrabad telengana-500081.
3.The Manager, Flipkart India Private limited,
Building Alyssa,Begonia and clove Embassy tech village outer ring road,
Devarabeesan ahalli village,Bengaluru,Karnataka-560103.
Sri B.N.Patra,President
Sri. B.B.Das,Member
Advocate for complainant-N.R Mishra & Associate
Advocate for O.Ps 1- D. P Mahanty
Advocate for Op-2-Set exparte
Advocate for Op-3- Manoj Ku Behera
Date of filing- 05.07.2021 Date of order- 03.09.2022
Sri B.N Patra (President)
Brief facts of the case is that on dtd 01.04.2021, complainant made an order for television of MI4A pro 80cm (32inch)HD Ready LED smart Android TV with Google Data Server on e-commerce through Op -3 vide order ID OD121410843310629000.Complainant made payment of Rs 13280/- for said TV.The said TV was installed on his house by Op-1 on 8.4.21.But the said TV went out of order on dtd 5.5.21 as it had not been able to Switch on.
The complainant registered on line complain through his room mat sayad Anish Akran .And said complain was registered as token no MI073909 on dtd 05.05.2021. And one message come to mobile that one service engineer was to attend the problems. But no one came to solve it. Due to deficiency of service and negligence of Op-1,the complainant sustained a great loss. So he prayed for return of cost of TV Rs 13280/- and Rs 10000 for mental harassment and other relief.
In the above allegation of complainant the case is admitted and notice issued to Ops. In this case Op-1 and Op-3 entered appearance filed written version.Op-2 did not appeared So Op-2 was set-exparte.
In the above case the complainant relied up on the following documents.
1. Tax Invoice dtd-5.4.21(Xerox copy)
2. Message of Op-1 to complainant (Xerox)
3. Message regarding appointment of service engineer on dt 6.5.21(Xerox)
4. Notice sent to Op-1 regarding non appearance of service engineer on 23.6.21(Xerox).
On the other hand Op-1.relies upon the following document.
1. Delivery Challan (Xerox copy)
2. Replacement invoice (Xerox copy)
3. Limited warranty statement (Xerox Copy)
Op-3 has filed the following documents.
- Certificate of incorporation
In this case learned advocate for Op -1 submits that the complainant accepted the replaced product without raising any objection and with complete satisfaction vide replacement invoice no-TVIN2107260000336.Delivery challon dt-26.7.2021 New product serial No-33697/C50100042729.The product is running in proper condition.Op-1 has not done any deficiency of service and Op-1 has also not made any manufacturing defect. Complainant has made false and frivolous complaint.
Learned advocate from Op-3 submits that he denies all the allegations, Op-3 has been made party only for fair trial and complainant has not prayed any relief from Op-3 and case is not maintainable. Complainant has wrongly made Op-3 as party .Op-3 is a whole seller and is only engaged in B2B sales. Advocate for Op-3 prays to dismiss the case against Op-3 .
In this complain case Op-2 has been set-exparte because sufficient notice has been served and not appeared to file written version.
Under the above circumstances. it is necessary to discuss the following issues before passing any order.
1.whether Ops has made deficiency in service?
2.Whether Ops have supplied manufacturing defect product?
3.Whether the complainant will get any relief?
All the issues are discussed jointly –It is no doubt that the complainant has purchased one T.V of Mi4A PRO 80cm (32inch) HD Ready LED smart android T.V with Goole Data server with IMEI. Serial No-33697/C50100042729/order id OD121410843310629000 through Op-2 and supplied by Op3.
Op-1 has made deficiency of service because he has not attended the problems, only made false assurance through online complain. But Op-1 has replaced the new product to complainant in the month of august 2022 after the complainant case is filed against Ops.Op-2 and Op-3 are impleaded as parties for fair trial in this case complainant has lingering the case only for any relief like mental agony and litigation.
Complainant has received a new product without any objection and it is running in good condition. No complain about the new product. So the commission feels that complainant is not like to get any mental harassment or cost of litigation. Hence order.
Order
The case of complainant is dismissed without any cost of litigation and mental harassment.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 3rd September 2022.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 03.09.2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( Sri B. N. Patra)
President
DCDRC,Keonjhar
