Bangalore District Commission Holds Titan Liable For Selling Defective Smartwatch With Charging Issue
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Titan liable for deficiency in service for selling a defective smartwatch and not responding to the Complainant's complaints. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a Fastrack...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Titan liable for deficiency in service for selling a defective smartwatch and not responding to the Complainant's complaints.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a Fastrack Revolt FS1 1.83 Display Smartwatch from Flipkart.com and paid Rs. 1,505/-. After encountering a charging issue with the device, the Complainant reached out to Titan's customer care via email and phone and sought assistance and resolution pursuant to the terms of the warranty agreement. Despite multiple attempts to communicate the problem, the Complainant faced unresponsiveness and lack of proper assistance from Titan's customer service team. Feeling deprived of the facilitated service, the Complainant repeatedly contacted Titan through telephonic conversations and emails regarding the inadequate service received.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Titan. Titan didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that Titan did not contest the Complainant's case. It failed to submit any written version denying the allegations or to present any evidence contradicting the Complainant's claims.
The District Commission further noted that Titan did not respond to the Complainant regarding the charging issue of the smartwatch. Additionally, during the hearing, the Complainant presented the smartwatch and its USB cable before the bench to demonstrate that the device was not charging. Therefore, the District Commission held Titan liable of deficiency in services. The bench held that Titan provided a smartwatch that was defective and did not fulfill its intended purpose.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Titan to refund Rs. 1,505/- to the Complainant, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Additionally, Titan was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Mr Nagateja P. vs The Authorised Signatory, World of Titan