D.O.F:22/06/2022

                                                                                                         D.O.O:08/12/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.132/2022

Dated this, the 08^th day of December 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                               : MEMBER

Muhammed Rafeeque. T alias Rafeeque Master,

Aged 47 years, Son of A. Ubaid,

Vadakke Kovval, North Trikarpur Village,

P.O. Trikarpur – 671310, Kasaragod Disrict.

(Adv: Harikrishna Prasad Manudev & A. Vidyadharan Nambiar)

                                                                                                                      : Complainant

                                                               And

1. Branch Manager, National Radio Electronics,

Main Road, Payyanur, P.O. Payyannur – 607307.

Kannur District.

2. The Manager, Panasonic India Private Limited,

12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambiene Island,

N.H.8, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.: Opposite Parties

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 at Payyanur on 20/06/2020 to purchase a television for domestic purpose.  The salesman of opposite party No.1 showed a television to the complainant and convinced that the set device is a good product of opposite party No.2 and it is better than other devices.  Several customers purchased the product.  Believing the description given by the salesman, the complainant purchased a Panasonic LED 39 inch television set with accessories for Rs.28,500/- from opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 informed that the product have 1 year warranty and in addition, they assured replacement warranty for a further period of 1 year.  The opposite party No.1’s staff installed the television sets in complainant’s house.  The product performed clearly for about one and half year.  The device became inactivated from 15/01/2022 onwards.  When the complainant informed the complaints of the television to opposite party No.1, he was asked to approach them with purchase bill and warranty card of the product.  The technician from opposite party No.1 checked the device and found that the mother board of the television set is damaged.  The complainant came to understand that the television set supplied to the complainant is not a new product.  The manufacturing date of the product was seen different inside the television and on the stick affixed on the product.  When the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to get replacement of the defective television, the opposite party No.1 refused it by saying that the warranty period is over.  The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for replacement of the product or to pay Rs.8,500/- for replacement of the motherboard of the device.  When the complainant reminded about the further 1 year replacement warranty assured by opposite party No.1, he has openly declared that it is only a business trick adopted by him when the business was dull on account of pandemic covid-19.  And they are not ready to give any further benefits than the warranty provided by opposite party No.2.  Thus, the complainant was brutally insulted by opposite party No.1.  With severe mental pain, complainant returned home.  As a teacher, the complainant could not conduct online classes to his students on account of the non-performance of the television set sold by opposite party No.1.  Beside the children of complainant became unable to attend their online classes due to the defects of the television.  The opposite parties have collude each other with a common intension to cheat the complainant and thus the warranty provided is only an unfair trade practice to attract the purchasers and opposite party No.1 has sold the product by knowing that it is a substandard one and unfit for long time use.  Due to the irresponsibility, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, the complainant has undergone severe mental pain, loss and hardships.  The complainant is caused to send a registered lawyer notice dated 09/02/2022 to opposite parties demanding them to replace the defective TV set with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain.  The opposite party No.2 has sent a reply in a belated stage denying the allegations stated in the notice.  The contentions in the reply notice sent by opposite party No.1 are incorrect and misleading one.  Hence the complainant is seeking for replacement of the TV set with a brand new device along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost. 

Even though notice was served to both opposite parties, they have failed to appear before the Hon’ble Commission, name of opposite parties called absent, set exparte. 

The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A5.  The questions raised for consideration are;

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in selling TV set to the complainant?                                                                
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. If so, what is the relief?

For convenience, all points can be discussed together. 

The complainant purchased a television set from the show room of opposite party No.2.  Ext.A1 invoice is produced to prove the purchase of the TV set.  The opposite party No.1 informed one year warranty with one year replacement warranty for further period of one year for the device.  Ext.A2 is produced to prove the warranty of the product. Thereafter, the TV became inactivated from 15/01/2022.  When it is informed to opposite party No.1, he was asked to approach him with purchase bill and warranty card.  The opposite party No.1 sent a technician to check the device.  While checking, it is found that the mother board of the television set is damaged.  While checking the device by the technician, the complainant came to know that it is not a new product.  The manufacturing date of the product was seen different inside the television and the sticker affixed on the box of the product.  When the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to get replacement of the defective television, the opposite party refused it by saying that the warranty period is over.  The opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.15,000/- for replacement of the product and Rs.8,500/- for replacement of the motherboard of the device.  When the complainant reminded him about the further one year replacement warranty assured by opposite party No.1, it was declared by opposite party No.1 that the assurance was only a business trick adopted by them at the time when the business was dull on the account of Covid-19.  The complainant caused to send a lawyer notice demanding replacement of the product with a new one along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/, Ext.A3 and A4 is produced to prove the notice.  The opposite party No.2 sent a highly belated reply, Ext.A5 is produced.  The complainant believes that opposite party No.1 & 2 collude together and cheated him by giving defective product.  The manufacturing date of the product was seen different inside the television and on the sticker affixed on the box of the product, while technician was checking the television set.  A newly purchased product of a reputed company will not be defective within a short time.  Moreover, the opposite parties denied replacement warranty which was assured earlier.  The opposite parties cheated the complainant by giving a defective product and when the product became inactive, they refused replacement as they are well aware of the fact that the devices inside the product are substandard and old and it cannot be cured by mere service.  The opposite parties compelled the complainant to purchase that product.  All these interferences by opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  The claim of the complainant is to get replacement of the TV set with a compensation of Rs.15,000/-.  The opposite parties are bound to replace the old defective TV set with a brand new one with compensation and cost.  Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant. 

            Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite parties to replace the TV set of the complainant with a brand new one along with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 – Bill invoice

A2 – Warranty card

A3 – Lawyer Notice

A4 – Acknowledgement of opposite party No.1

A5 – Reply notice

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/