Bangalore District Commission Holds TVS Liable For Non-Delivery Of Helmet Despite Receiving Due Consideration

Brief Facts:

The Complainant ordered a TVS Helmet Lock Double-Black for Rs. 317/-, through TVS's online shopping platform within the TVS Connect app. The Complainant received an email notification with shipping details. While tracking the shipment using the provided shipment ID, the Complainant encountered an error indicating that the order did not belong to him. The Complainant then reported the issue to TVS customer service. However, he was redirected to two to three different departments, each claiming that only the "parts" team could handle such requests. Despite repeated attempts, the Complainant was given another contact and asked to send a query via email.

Later, the Complainant sent an email detailing the discrepancy and seeking a resolution. In response, the TVS support team stated that an agent would contact the Complainant within 24 to 48 hours, but no such contact was made. Despite multiple efforts, the Complainant only received automated responses, all reiterating the same promise of contact within 24 to 48 hours. Frustrated by the lack of resolution, the Complainant issued a legal notice. Even after this notice, TVS refunded Rs. 317/- but did not deliver the helmet. Aggrieved by the actions of TVS, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru, Karnataka (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against TVS.

TVS didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the correspondence between the Complainant and TVS made it clear that TVS's actions were unprofessional and malicious. It held that the conduct caused significant strain and stress to the Complainant, both physically and mentally. It held that TVS failed to provide a satisfactory and quick response to the Complainant, despite receiving payment for the product.

The District Commission held that TVS purposefully delayed the delivery of the product stating a tracking error and ultimately refunded Rs. 317/- for the non-delivery. It held that due to the non-participation of TVS in the proceedings, there was a clear admission that the complaint's allegations were true. Consequently, the District Commission held TVS liable for the Complainant's inconvenience, physical suffering, and mental agony. It held TVS liable for the deficiency in service.

Therefore, the District Commission directed TVS to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the deficiency in service, along with Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Case Title: Sri Ishan Patel vs TVS Motor Company Ltd.

Case Number: C.C.No.77/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order