DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2023.
Filed on: 19/10/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N
C.C. No. 325/2020
COMPLAINANT
Jijo Thomas, S/o B. C. Thomas, Gaganam House, Chaithanya Lane, Elamakkara, Cochin 682026.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Thomson India, C/o. Super Plastronics Pvt. Ltd., B 29, 30, 31, Phase II, Noida 201305.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a Thomson B9 PRO 40-inch LED TV from Flipkart on January 30, 2020. However, the TV stopped working on August 17, 2020. After numerous follow-ups and requests, Thomson agreed to replace the faulty TV with a brand new one of the same model. However, Thomson sent an old faulty TV of a different model, which had a defective LED panel and dislocated speakers. The complaint escalated the issue to Thomson's customer care, who initially denied the problem but eventually accepted the mistake after receiving a report from a local authorized Thomson service technician. The complaint has been requesting Thomson to provide a better model as the Thomson B9 PRO is no longer available on Flipkart and a new model has been launched. Despite more than a month passing, Thomson has not agreed to provide a suitable replacement. The complainant is seeking the return of the old TV and compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the inconvenience caused.
2) Notice
The notice sent to the opposite party has been successfully served. However, the opposite party has not filed their version. Hence, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 18 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-18.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the invoice as evidence of the purchase of Thomson B9 PRO 40-inch LED TV by the complainant from the opposite party through the e-commerce platform Flipkart on January 30, 2020.
Exhibit 2: Copy of the complaint receipt provided by a local authorized Thomson service technician, acting on behalf of the opposite party. This receipt serves as evidence of the complaint made by the complainant.
Exhibit 3: Copy of the complaint made by the complainant. This document serves as additional supporting evidence in the case.
Exhibit 4: A copy of the confirmation of the issues with the TV is provided by a local authorized Thomson service technician.
4) 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?
iii) 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?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are 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. The complainant produced a copy of the invoice as evidence of the purchase of a Thomson B9 PRO 40-inch LED TV by the complainant from the opposite party through the e-commerce platform Flipkart on January 30, 2020. (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant has filed the above case seeking compensation for the deficiency of service caused by the opposite party's failure to provide a defect-free LED TV.
The complainant submitted that he purchased a Thomson B9 PRO 40-inch LED TV from the e-commerce platform Flipkart on January 30, 2020, as evidenced by (Exhibit A-1). Unfortunately, the TV malfunctioned and stopped working on August 17, 2020. After facing several difficulties and persistent follow-ups, the opposite party eventually agreed to replace the faulty TV with a brand new one of the same model. However, to the complainant's disappointment, the opposite party sent an old TV of a different model as the replacement. This replacement TV exhibited issues such as a defective LED panel and dislocated speakers, which were confirmed by a local authorized opposite-party service technician.
When the complaint was brought to the opposite party’s customer care, they initially denied any problem or mistake. However, after receiving the report from the local technician, they finally acknowledged the error of sending the wrong model and admitted that it was a refurbished product in a different box.
Given the situation, the complainant felt deceived and has been requesting the opposite party to provide a suitable replacement, considering that the Thomson B9 PRO model is no longer available on Flipkart and has been replaced by a new model. Despite the complainant's persistent efforts, more than a month has passed, and the opposite party has not agreed to provide an appropriate replacement.
In addition to seeking a proper replacement, the complainant also wants the opposite party to take back the old TV currently lying at their residence due to its low quality. Moreover, the complainant is requesting compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the inconvenience caused by the opposite party’s actions.
The commission has carefully considered the facts presented by the complainant and the evidence provided, including the purchase invoice, complaint copy, and the report from the local authorized service technician of the opposite party. The commission notes that the opposite party has failed to file any written objections or present a defence in this case.
After reviewing the evidence and considering the complainant's rights as a consumer, this commission finds merit in the complainant's claims. It is clear that the complainant purchased a Thomson B9 PRO 40-inch LED TV from Flipkart, which subsequently malfunctioned and stopped working on August 17, 2020. Following persistent follow-ups, the opposite party agreed to replace the faulty TV with a new one of the same model.
However, the complainant received an old TV of a different model as the replacement, which had various issues such as a defective LED panel and dislocated speakers. The opposite party initially denied any wrongdoing but later acknowledged their mistake when confronted with the report from the local authorized Thomson service technician of the opposite party.
Considering the complainant's repeated requests for a suitable replacement, taking into account that the original Thomson B9 PRO model is no longer available on Flipkart and has been replaced by a new model, this Commission finds that the opposite party has failed to fulfil its obligations.
We have also noticed that a Notice sent to the opposite party has been successfully served. However, the opposite party has not filed their version. Hence, the opposite party is set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 18 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-18. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it.
The opposite parties’ 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. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite party's inadequate service caused a deficiency, negligence, and failure to meet the complainant's expectations. This resulted in the complainant's mental agony, hardship, and financial loss. These actions demonstrate the opposite party's callousness, negligence, and poor service quality, making them fully responsible.
Manufacturers have a legal obligation to fulfil their responsibilities towards consumers and ensure the quality and integrity of the products and services they provide. This order serves as a reaffirmation of the importance of safeguarding consumer rights and emphasizes the legal consequences faced by businesses that neglect their duties in this regard.
We find the issue Nos. (I) to (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party is directed to retrieve the low-quality old TV currently in the possession of the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall refund Rs 15999/- towards the cost of the Thomson B9 PRO 40-inch LED TV to the complainant as per Exhibit A-1 invoice.
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service, mental agony, and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party is required to comply with the aforementioned directions within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Failure to do so will result in the amount ordered in (ii) and (iii) above accruing interest at a rate of 9% from the date of receiving a copy of this order until the date of payment.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of June, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. A1: Copy of Tax Invoice dated 30/01/2020
Exbt. A2: Copy of e-mail regarding extended warranty
Exbt. A3: Copy of Grievance Details
Exbt. A4: Copy of Grievance Details
Exbt. A5: Copy of Grievance Details
Exbt. A6: Copy of Grievance Details
Exbt. A7: Copy of Grievance Details
Exbt. A8: Copy of Grievance Details
Exbt. A9: Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A10: Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A11: Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A12: Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A13: Copy of e-mail communication
Exbt. A14: Copy of photographs
Exbt. A15: Copy of photographs
Exbt. A16: Copy of Customer Service Record
Exbt. A17: Copy of photograph
Exbt. A18: Copy of screenshot
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 325/2020
Order Date: 27/06/202
