Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/64/2018

Consumer Protection council Tamil nadu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adonis Electronics Pvt Ltd rep by it's Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

S.Pushpavanam

27 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on :08.05.2018

                                                                   Date of disposal             : 27.10.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                     : PRESIDENT

                                  TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                          : MEMBER-I

                                  THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.64/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 27^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

1.  Consumer Protection Council, Tamilanadu.   

7, 12^th cross, KumaranNagar,

Trichy-17.

 

On behalf of

2.   Veerputhiran

149/1 Golden jubilee flat,

Padikuppam Road, Anna nagar West,

Chennai-600 040                                                                                 …..Complainants

 

 ..Vs..

 

1.  

Rep.by its Proprietor,

2, III St, VOC Nagar, Anna Nagar West,

Chennai-600 102.

 

2.  

Rep.by its Managing Director,

ONIDA House,

G-1.MIDC Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai-400 093.

…. Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.S.Pushpavanam

Counsel for  opposite parties               : M/s.S.K.Mariyappan and 3 others.

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER-II

          This complaint has been filed by the 2^nd complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to a new mother board which will solve the problem or refund the money he paid for the mother board Rs.4000/- or take back the defective TV and replace the new TV if the spare parts are not available discontinued manufacturing and to pay Rs.10000/- for loss of viewing for these 28 months and to pay a token compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the mental agony and hardship and to pay Rs.5000/- cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          According to complaint, the first complainant is a registered voluntary organization working for the welfare of the consumers since 1974 and has filed this complaint along with 2^nd complainant who is a member of this organization.  The 2^nd complainant had purchased a TV from authorized dealer of 2^nd opposite party in on 11.09.2011 for Rs.29,900/-.  Four years later there was an audio disturbance and gave his ONIDA TV to 1^st opposite party on 15.10.2015 for paid service since the warranty was over.  The complainants state that the 1st opposite party was just dragging the repair for 7 months stating that the new spare was on the way and in the meanwhile without informing, 1^st opposite party changed his location.  The 2^nd complainant located the new location and after enquiry, the 1^st opposite party informed him that there was no stock of spare parts but promising the repair.  At last on 02.06.2016, after a delay of 7 ½  months, the 1^st opposite party called the 2^nd complainant to come and collect the TV since they had received the spare board and TV is ready for delivery.  The 2^nd complainant visited the 1^st opposite party service center, where the 1^st opposite party could not demonstrate the TV due to lack of cable connection but insisted for money towards cost of main board.  The 2^nd complainant insisted for viewing the parts replaced, the 1^st opposite party opened the TV, the 2^nd complainant shocked to found the rusted main board which the 1^st opposite claimed as new one and took the pictures in the presence of 1^st opposite party.  The complainants states that the 1^st opposite party forced the complainant for the cost of main board and the same was paid by the 2^nd complainant and took delivery of TV based on the promise given by the 1^st opposite party that in case of any issues, 1^st opposite party would visit the home of 2^nd complainant and rectify the problems.  On testing at home by the 2^nd complainant, it was found that the problems still persists and after a week more problems cropping up and finally the total function was erratic.  After the 2^nd complainant repeatedly reported to 1^st opposite party, one person came and tried but told that main board has to be replaced.  The 2^nd complainant immediately sent a mail to opposite parties on 16.06.2016 stating that the complainant was cheated by providing old main board after charging Rs.4,000/-.  The 1^st complainant had also sent letters to opposite parties on 29.08.2016 for which both the opposite parties sent identical replies asking for bills, warranty card and job card and the same were sent by 2^nd complainant but there was no response for the same.  Whereas the opposite parties once in 3 or 4 months called the 2^nd complainant whether the problem is solved because the complaint job remains open and the last call was received on 13.03.2018.  Thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

The 2^nd opposite party adopted the version filed by the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties deny all the allegations and averments of the complaint except those are specifically admitted herein and put the complainants to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submits that the 2^nd complainant purchased ONIDA TV Model No. LED-32s from M/s. Chellamani & Co. and the same was not defective right from the date of purchase.  The 1^st opposite party state that 2^nd complainant had made compliant to 1^st opposite party on 20.10.2015 for sound defect in the product and 1^st opposite party had sent a service engineer and found out the issue relating mother board.  The 1^st opposite party replaced the mother board and all other problems were set right.  The 1^st opposite party states that the TV was purchased in the year 2011 and the production of said model was stopped by the 2^nd opposite party and hence the 1^st opposite party had taken reasonable time to replace the mother board.  The 1^st opposite party denies the averments in para 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint.  The 1^st opposite party thoroughly checked and confirmed its conditions in the presence of 2^nd complainant and handed over to the complainant with proper instructions about the use of product.  The 1^st opposite party denies the averments in para 5 of the complaint that 2^nd complainant sent a mail to the opposite parties stating the replaced mother board was old one, subsequent to the opposite parties denied the allegation and send reply notice in which the replaced mother board is working in good condition and in the presence of 2^nd complainant it was demonstrated and then only the 2^nd complainant took the same.  In the reply notice, the opposite parties sought the copies of bill, warranty card, copy of customer service job sheet to give para wise reply to notice.  The opposite party states that 2^nd complainant had not made any complaint regarding the defect in the product till date after the delivery of the product either over phone or in person and not made / registered any complaint.  Hence the opposite parties pray for dismissal of complaint with exemplary and compensatory costs.

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

          The complainants filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of complainants.  The opposite parties filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 is marked on the side of opposite parties.

4. POINT NO :1

          The admitted facts of the complaint are that 2^nd complainant had purchased a ONIDA TV Model No. LED 32 from M/s. Chellamani & Co. on 11.09.2011 for Rs.29,900/-.  The copy of purchase bill is marked as Ex. A1.  The 2^nd complainant found some audio disturbance and gave the product to 1^st opposite party for repair in the month of Oct. 2015.  The Job Card issued by the 1^st opposite party is marked as Ex.A2. 

5. The complainants contended that as per Ex.A2, the TV was given for repair to 1^st opposite party on 15.10.2015 and he took 7 ½ months to get it repaired and stated that spares part is not available.  In the meanwhile he had shifted his location which was not intimated to the 2^nd complainant.  After 7 ½  months the 1^st opposite party called the 2^nd complainant to take delivery of  product and while taking delivery he was shocked to found that the replaced mother board was rusted one and 1^st opposite party not demonstrated the product but gave delivery after receiving Rs.4,000/- as cost of mother board. The photo of rusted mother board is marked as Ex.A8.  It is observed from the Ex.A3, the 2^nd complainant had paid Rs.4,000/- towards cost of mother board.  After taking delivery to home the 2^nd complainant again faced problems and within a week the total function was erratic and the 2^nd complainant informed the same to 1^st opposite party who in turn sent a service engineer, who checked and concluded that unless main board is replaced, nothing could be done.  The 2^ndcomplainant felt cheated and sent a mail to 1^st opposite party on 16.06.2016 informing that he was cheated by providing old mother board after charging Rs.4,000/-.  It is noticed from the Ex.A4, that it is a letter addressed to 1^st opposite party and not a mail as claimed by complainant.  The 1^st complainant also sent a letter on 29.08.2016 to opposite parties which are marked as Ex. A5 for which opposite parties have sent a reply notice dated 14.10.2016 which is marked as Ex.A6, wherein the opposite parties sought copies of bill, warranty card, job card to give para wise reply for which the 2nd complainant sent the same.  But there is no proof of document for sending the same to opposite parties was filed by 2^nd complainant.  

6.  On the other hand, the opposite parties claims that the product was purchased in the year 2011 and it was working properly right from the date of purchase.  The 1^st opposite party claims that on 20.10.2015 they received a complaint from 2^nd complainant.  Whereas it is observed from Ex.A2, the product was given for repair to 1^st opposite party on 15.10.2015 itself.  The complainants alleged that opposite parties took 7 ½ months for getting the spares.  The opposite parties on their side claims that production of said TV model was stopped by 2^nd opposite party and hence there was a delay in getting the mother board.  The complainants alleged that even after 7 ½ months, the board replaced by them was rusted one and the moment 2^nd complainant took to his home and found some problem and within a week there was total erratic function.  The 1^st opposite party collected a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the 2^nd complainant towards cost of replacement of mother board which is evident from Ex. A3.  The 2^nd complainant claims that he immediately sent a mail to 1^st opposite party on 16.06.2016 as per Ex. A4 but it is noticed that the communication sent by 2^nd complainant was not a mail and only a letter and the proof of sending the same was not filed by 2^nd complainant.  The 1^st complainant also sent a letter on 29.08.2016 to both opposite parties in this regard as per Ex.A5.  The opposite parties in their averments stated that the mother board was replaced and the product was working properly and it was delivered to 2^nd complainant and also stated that there was no complaint from complainant till date after the delivery of the product either over phone or in person and not made / registered any complaint.  After carefully going through the averments of opposite parties, it is observed that the opposite parties took 7 ½ months for replacement of mother board.  They collected a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards replacement of mother board and delivered it on 02.06.2016.  They claimed that there was no complaint from opposite parties about the problems in the product till date after service. But the 2^ndcomplainant claims he had sent a mail on 16.06.2016 i.e. within 15 days from the date of delivery.  Further the 1^st complainant sent another letter on 29.08.2016 which is within 3 months and the same were received by both opposite parties and replied also.  The opposite parties instead of attending the problems, they sought the copies of purchase bill, warranty card and job card etc. for para wise reply.  It is a well known fact that the product was not under warranty when it was given for repair and due to this the 1^stopposite party have collected the cost for replacement of mother board which was not denied by opposite parties.  The opposite parties have not specified the reasons for the requirement of copy of purchase bill and job card other than para wise reply. It is pertinent to note that job card details are available with 1^st opposite party itself.  It is found that the 2^nd complainant has given authorization memo which was filed along with complaint thereby authorizing the 1^st complainant to appear and file complaint on behalf of 2^nd complainant.   As per the Ex.A8 photo, it is found that the replaced mother board is rusted one.  In the present case, the opposite parties being the manufacturer and authorized service center respectively are just evaded from their responsibility for efficient and prompt service to their customers.  Having collected money for the replacement of mother board, the 1^st opposite party replaced with old rusted mother board after a gap of 7 ½ months under the guise of outdated model for which the production was stopped by 2^nd opposite party as per 1^st opposite party statement and not attending the after service complaints which were raised within the short span of time from the date of service amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2.

                Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party as stated above, the 2^nd complainant was made to spent cost of mother board for Rs.4,000/- by which the 2^nd complainant was put to hardship and loss.  Hence the 2^nd complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.4,000/-  from the opposite parties, towards cost of mother board.  Since, the 2^nd complainant was put to hardship and mental agony due to the act of the opposite party the 2^nd complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

         In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties jointly or severally are directed to refund Rs. 4,000/- being the cost of mother board to the 2^ndcomplainant and Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the 2^nd complainant towards compensation for physical hardship and mental agony suffered by the 2^ndcomplainant and also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint. The above amount shall be paid to the 2^nd Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment. 

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27^th day of October 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	11.09.2011	Original Purchase invoice.
Ex.A2	15.10.2015	Job card of 1st opposite party.
Ex.A3	02.06.2016	Cash memo pain for new main board.
Ex.A4	16.06.2016	Copy of the mail by 2nd complainant
Ex.A5	29.08.2016	Letter by the 1st complainant to opposite parties.
Ex.A6	14.10.2016	Identical replies of opposite parties.
Ex.A7	02.06.2016	Photo of the rusted mother board.
Ex.A8	02.06.2016	Photo of the TV for serial number/model details.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1

Authorization letter and board resolution.

 

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT