DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD

Dated this the 10^th  day of  January 2022

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President         

             :   Smt.Vidya A., Member              

  Date of filing: 09.08.2021.

       CC/120/2021

  P.Abdul Latheef

  S/o Ummer                                                    -           Complainant

  Padathil House

  Palakkal Peedika

  Thanneercode post

  Chalissery Via

  Palakkad 679 536

 (By Adv:M.P.Ravi, M.J.Vince)                                                                                             

                              Vs

1.C.P.Home Bazar

H.S. Road

Koottanad Post

Palakkad 679533

(Rep. by its Manager)                                                      Opposite Parties

2.M/s.Westway Electronics Ltd

B-102

Phase II, Noida 201 305

UttarPradesh State

(Represented by its Manager)

(Opposite parties remained Exparte)

O R D E R

By Smt.Vidya A, Member

1.Brief facts of the complaint

          The complaint purchased a Television set from the 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on  08/08/2018 on payment of Rs.39,000/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand only) including GST and stabilizer.  It has a warranty for 36 months from the date of bill.  The Television stopped functioning on May 2021 and on 06/06/2021, the complainant made a complaint with the opposite parties.  A service person of the opposite parties, after inspecting the Television, informed the complainant that the board is damaged and it is to be replaced.  Accordingly he took the board and got it replaced after 3 weeks.  But even after that the Television was not working and the service person told that the panel also is to be replaced and he promised to get it replaced within a week.  But inspite of the lapse of one  month, the opposite parties did not replace the part as promised.

          The opposite parties are bound to provide timely service and the 2^nd opposite party had issued a warranty which is still subsisting.  The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties had caused great hardship to the complainant.  The complainant’s children studying in Plus II and 7^th standard respectively could not attend their online classes as the TV was not working.  The  opposite parties failed to provide proper service in time which amounts to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice.  They are liable to compensate the complainant.   The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on several occasions to redress his grievance, but they did not bother about this.

          This complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Television with a new one free of cost and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of this litigation.

          2.       Complaint admitted and notice issued to both opposite parties.  Even though notice was served on both opposite partíes, they did not appear before the Commission.  So their name called and they were set ex-parte.

3.       Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Exhibits A1 and A2 marked.  Heard the complainant.

4.       Main points for consideration

          (1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          (2)If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation.

Points 1 & 2

5.       We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant.  Exhibit A1 is the invoice dated 08/08/2018 issued by 1^st opposite party showing the purchase of LED TV model- WESTON 50WEL 5106S and stabilizer, for an amount of Rs.39,300/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand and three hundred only) Exhibit A2 is the warranty card for the Television showing a warranty of 39 months from the date of company’s invoice / manufacturing date mentioned at the box ‘OR’ 36 months from the date of dealer’s bill (which ever is earlier).

6.       According to the complainant, the TV stopped functioning in May 2021 and as per his complaint on 06/06/2021, a service person of the opposite party visited his house.  After inspection he found that the board is damaged and took it and replaced after 3 weeks.  But even after that the TV was not functioning and the service person informed him that the panel also is to be replaced and promised to get it replaced within a week.  But the opposite parties did not replace it even after one month and the Television is not working till now.

7.       The opposite parties are bound to provide timely service to the product manufactured and sold by them.  Further, since the television set was under warranty, the complainant is entitled to get the television repaired free of cost.  But the opposite parties failed to do proper service.  So it is clear deficiency in service on the part of them.

8.       The 1^st opposite party failed to replace the panel within a week as promised. Even after that they did not provide service and the complainant and his family were unable to use the Television set.  As per the complaint, the complainant’s children studying in plus II and 7^th standard could not attend their online class because of this.

9.       The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties had caused mental agony and difficulties to the complainant and his family for which they are liable to compensate.

10.     Further Exhibit A2 also contains the following clause, casting a duty on the dealer.  Line 4 on the reverse of Exhibit A2 reads “…………. It should have a defect arise in this set during the period of warranty, and it’s franchises as the seller undertake to get the Television set repaired free of charge, through its service centers.”  It is clear from a reading of the Exhibit A2 that a liability is cast upon the dealer to carry out repairs through the service centers.  After having held-out such a promise, the 1^st opposite party has failed to carry out this promise, much less appear before this Commission to explain their conduct.  They have acted derogatory to and in gross violations of the undertakings.  This is nothing but unfair trade practice.  Since the product is under warranty, manufacturer is also liable for the repair / replacement of the defective product.

11.     Since the opposite parties remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part.

          We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay

          (1).Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for the mental agony and difficulties suffered by the complaint and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this litigation.  This amount shall be initially paid by the first opposite party to the complainant.  The first opposite party is at liberty to get the share of the 2^nd opposite party indemnified by the 2^nd opposite party.         

          (2).We further direct the 1^st opposite party to repair the Television set free of cost.  Or alternatively pay an amount  of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th day of January 2022.

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                      Vinay Menon V

                                              President.

                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                             Vidya.A                                                                                                 Member

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1–  GST invoice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant

    dated  08/08/2018.

Ext.A2 -  Warranty card dated 08/08/2018.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

NIL

Cost: 5,000/-