SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP’s to refund the value of TV Rs.22498/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for the  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

   The complainant had purchased Vu Premium,108Cm 43” Full HD Led smart Android TV from 2^nd  OP through flip Kart online market  dtd.24/8/2020 for an amount of Rs.20999/-. As per the terms of warranty 2^nd OP offered one year warranty also.  But before the warranty period the TV became defective and the complainant informed the matter to 2^nd OP.  Thereafter the 2^nd OP replaced a new TV to the complainant and the defective TV taken back by the OP on the same date.  As per the terms of the warranty the OP assured complete TV protection (3 years) given to the complainant and the complainant  paid Rs.1499/- to 1^st OP.  At the time of offering to sell the TV OP’s were promised that they will provide prompt services and necessary repair in case of any  complaint.  The complainant was agreed to purchase the TV only believing the words of OPs.  But on 10/8/2022 the TV became defective.  The complainant and his family informed the matter to 1^st OP.  But the OP’s are not ready to repair or replace the TV.  The complainant again approached  to the 1^st OP.  The technician of 1^st OP came to complainant’s house and not repair the problem of the TV.  The complainant’s age old mother, sister and other family members  also got mental agony regarding the non working of the TV.  As per the terms of the warranty the complete TV protection(3 years) offered to the complainant.  But the OPs are not  ready to cure  the defects of the TV.  The act of the OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing this complaint, notice  issued to both  opposite parties. 1^st OP served the notice and 2^nd  OP’s correct address furnished, thereafter  2^nd OP also not appeared before the commission and not filed version.   The commission had to  hold that both  OP’s are  not appeared before the commission and no version  filed.  As such this case came to be proceed against the   opposite parties  as set  exparte.

    Even though the opposite parties have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OPs.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.   Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 2 documents  marking them as  Exts.A1 & A2.  The complainant  was examined as PW1.   So the opposite parties remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.

    Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dtd.24/8/2020.  In  Ext.A2 is the  Complete TV protection(3 years) tax invoice with whatts app message from 1^st OP.  According to the complainant the 2^nd  OP received an amount of Rs.20999/-  from complainant dtd. 24/8/2020 and the TV ordered on  21/8/2020.  At the time of offering to sell the TV the OP’s were promised that they will provide prompt service and complete TV protection (3 years) , and paid Rs.1499/- to 1^st OP also.  On 10/8/2022 the TV became completely damaged and not in a position to  use .  Then the complainant informed the matter to 1^st OP in several times.  One technician came to the house of the complainant in twice.  But the OP’s are not  repaired the defects of the TV only to send whatts app message to repair the TV within 7-10 days. So the OPs bound to  repair the TV on free of cost within the warranty period.  So the OP’s  are liable to repair the TV on free of cost within the warranty  period.  So the OPs are liable to repair the TV with free  of cost without delay.  There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Under this circumstances  we are of the considered view that  the OPs are directly bound to redressal  the grievances caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the repaired TV with free of cost along with Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing  the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to repair the TV with free of cost and in a working condition  to the complainant  along with Rs.7000/- as compensation  for metal agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default, the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund the value of  TV Rs.20,999/- already paid to 2^nd opposite party and the complete TV   Protection(3years) Rs.1499/- already paid to 1^st opposite party ie, total Rs.22,498/- carries interest@ 12% per annum  from the date of order till realization , failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice dtd.24/8/2020

A2-Tax invoice with whats app  message.

 Postal receipt

PW1-Sujesh.A.K– Complainant

Sd/                                                                Sd/                                               Sd/

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                             Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                  /forwarded by Order/

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR