DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th day of August 2020

Present   : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)            Date of Filing: 24/11/2018

              : Smt.Vidya.A, Member         

CC No.154/2018

Sumesh

S/o. Pazhanimala (Late)

Nattukal, Kozhinjampara,

Chitur Taluk, Palakkad Dist.                                                     -  Complainant

(By Adv.Kannaraj.K.R)

1.  Bismi Connect,

Bismi Connect Pvt. Limited,

JP’S Kairali Arcade, 21/80-10,

Near Stadium Bus Stand, Palakkad.                                         -  Opposite parties

2.  Philips India Limited,

Sunny Side, C Block, 3^rd Floor,

No. 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road,

2^nd Street, Chennai – 600 006

O R D E R

By Smt.Vidya.A, Member

Brief facts of the complaint :

            The complainant purchased a PHILIPS PANEL 32 PFL 3931 HD model TV from the 1^st opposite party’s shop on 04/02/2018 for an amount of Rs.18,490/-.  At that time the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that the product has one year warranty.  On 30/09/2018, while watching the TV, some grains appeared on the TV screen and it switched off automatically and stopped working completely.  The complainant informed the 1^st opposite party about the defects of the TV through telephone and the 1^st opposite party registered his complaint.  The complainant also registered a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party through their customer care number.  Even after two weeks of registering the complaint no attempt was made from the part of the opposite parties to repair the TV.  So the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party directly with the TV and requested him either to repair or replace the TV.  Then the opposite party denied the requirement of the complainant and told that it is a manufacturing defect and they are not liable to repair it and they have stopped selling 2^nd opposite party’s television items and so they cannot ask them to repair the TV.  If the 1^st opposite party has to replace the TV with a new one made by another company in the exchange scheme, the complainant has to pay extra money.  The employees of the 1^st opposite party ignored the complainant even without considering him as a consumer.

            1^st opposite party being the seller is liable to repair the TV if any defect occurs within the warranty period free of cost and 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer is liable to replace the TV if there is any manufacturing defect in it.  But they did not do this.  The complainant sent lawyer notice on 20/10/2018 and the 1^st opposite party refused it without accepting and did not make any attempt to repair or replace the television. 

            The complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony because of the acts of the opposite parties and so they are liable to compensate him for that.  Hence the complainant is filed for getting an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective parts and repair the TV free of cost and to get a compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 

            Complaint admitted and notice issued to both opposite parties.  When the case is posted for the appearance of the opposite parties, the 1^st opposite party who was duly served, appeared but failed to file their version within time.  Hence their name called and set ex-parte.  Notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party returned stating ‘left’.  Fresh address was produced by the complainant and the notice sent in that address also returned stating ‘left’.  Later the complainant filed on IA/218/2019 to abandon the claim against 2^nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the Television and it was allowed.  The complainant also filed an IA/112/2020 to amend the complaint and it was allowed.  The complaint was amended as to incorporate the prayer to return the amount paid by the complainant as price for the television. 

            From the side of the complainant chief affidavit filed and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked.  The television was produced and it is marked as MO1. 

            The main issues raised in this case for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief as to cost/compensation?

Issues 1 & 2

            Heard.

            We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant.  From Ext.A1, the invoice dated.04/02/2018 issued by the 1^st opposite party, it is clear that the complainant purchased a PHILIPS PANEL 32 PFL 3931 HD model Television from the 1^st opposite party’s shop by paying an amount of Rs.18,490/-.  Ext.A2 “The quick reference guide” shows that the TV is covered under warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase.  As per the complaint, the TV got damaged on 30/09/2018 which means the TV became defective within the warranty period. 

            The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the TV.  In this case, the TV started showing problems within the warranty period itself and as per the complaint, the complainant immediately registered complaints with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  From the averments in the complaint it can be seen that since there was no response to his complaints from the 1^st opposite party, the complainant personally approached the first opposite party with the TV.  They refused to repair the defects stating that it is a manufacturing defect, and so they are not responsible for curing the defects and only the manufacturer is liable.  Further according to the complainant, 1^st opposite party did not make any attempt to inspect the defect of the product. 

As per the law of privity of contract, if a consumer finds any defect in the goods he purchased, he usually approaches the person from whom he had bought the goods.  The buyer does not have any contract with the manufacturing company.  He buys the things from the dealer.  If the dealer sells a product which is not in conformity with the warranty given by the manufacturer, then the dealer is equally liable for the sale of defective product.

A dealer cannot avoid his liability to carry out the terms of the warranty and in turn he may involve the manufacturer in fulfilling his obligations under warranty.  According to the complainant, the first opposite party remarked that it is a case of manufacturing defect. 

So the 1^st opposite party should have contacted the manufacturer to get the TV repaired or replaced, if they were of the view that it is a manufacturing defect since it happened within the warranty period.  The 1^st opposite party cannot evade his responsibility by simply saying that they had stopped selling 2^nd opposite party’s television items and so they cannot contact them to get the TV repaired or replaced.

Since the 1^st opposite party remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  The manufacturer of the TV was also included in the party array and reasonable efforts were made by the complainant to serve notice to them.  Notices sent to the 2^nd opposite party were returned twice and finally the complainant abandoned the claim against 2^nd opposite party, the manufacturer.

So the dealer in this case cannot escape from liability.  There is clear deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in not repairing or replacing the TV after contacting the manufacturer. 

Further when a newly purchased TV becomes defective within 8 months of its purchase, the complainant would have definitely suffered mental agony.  Also in chief affidavit the complainant mentioned that because of that he had to purchase a new TV.  So he had suffered financial loss also because of the acts of the opposite party for which they have to compensate the complainant. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  We direct the 1^st opposite party to refund the cost of the TV amounting Rs.18,490/- (Rupees eighteen thousand four hundred and ninety only) to the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant. 

Once the full amount is paid, the 1^st opposite party can take back the Television which is produced before the Forum.     

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.  

Pronounced in the open court on this the  25^th day of August 2020.

                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                           V.P.Anantha Narayanan         

    Member (President I/c)

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                                 Vidya.A

            Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 - Original invoice dated.04/02/2018 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the

               complainant

Ext.A2 – The quick reference guide”

Ext.A3 – Returned notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party and

                acknowledgement card

Ext.A4 -  Lawyer notice sent by the complainant to the  1^st opposite party with postal receipt

Mo1 -  The defective television

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

NIL

Cost :