By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 20/12/2019, the complainant had purchased a LED TV (LED JVC LT 32 N3105CIT3) from the shop of the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the subject product and third opposite party is the service centre of the second opposite party. But, in the month of May, 2020 the product became damaged. The complainant contacted the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the product and consequently, service men came and replaced circuit board of the television. But the defect was continued rectified and television remained non functioned. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite parties did not attend the grievance of the complainant , though repeated requests were made out by the complainant . As a result, four of his grand children could not attend online learning. The opposite parties are failed to rectify the defect of the product. The acts of the opposite parties caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the complainant approached the Commission praying for replacement of the product and also sought a relief of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation for the sufferings due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party .
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the first opposite party. The first opposite party appeared and filed version. The complainant also appointed Power of Attorney on his behalf and same was allowed by the Commission. Subsequently the power of attorney holder of the complainant filed an interim application numbered as IA 100/22 to implead the manufacturer and the service centre of the subject product. The Commission allowed the application and impleaded them as second and third opposite parties respectively. The Commission issued notices. But the opposite parties two and third not turned up before the Commission.
3. In the version, the first opposite party admitted the sale of the subject product as stated in the complaint. But the opposite party denied the allegation of defect of television and replacement of circuit board as raised in the complaint. There was no incident of avoiding the complaint of television. According to the opposite party, there was no evasion from the responsibilities as alleged by the complainant. The allegation of breakage of learning due to non-functioning of television in the complaint is also denied by the opposite party and termed it as a concocted story. It is stated by the opposite party that a complaint was registered by the complainant on 23/06/2020 with regard to the subject product and the opposite party informed the same to the service centre of the product. Subsequently all dealings were done between the service centre and the complainant. According to the opposite party, the complainant did not contact the opposite party so far in connection with complaint of television. The opposite party contended that there is mis-joinder of necessary party in the proceedings. The opposite party also contended that there are non-joinder of necessary parties as manufacturer and service provider not made party in the proceedings. The complainant pleaded for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost. The opposite party also denied the allegation of deficiency in service averred in the complaint.
4. The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavits. The complainant also produced documents. The documents on the side of the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A2 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of GST invoice dated 20/12/2019 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the copy of terms and conditions of warranty of the subject product issued by the opposite party to the complainant. No document is produced by the opposite party. The affidavit filed in lieu of evidence was signed by the original complainant and it was produced before the Commission on 07/12/2021. At the same time the power of attorney was executed on 16/10/2021 by the complainant to conduct the case and same was allowed by the Commission on 18/10/2021. On 15/02/2022 the sad demise of original complainant was reported by the power of attorney holder. The opposite party filed additional affidavit and challenged the status and right of power of attorney to conduct the proceedings. The death certificate is produced before the Commission showing the date of demise of the original complainant as on 28/01/2022. Even though sufficient time was available to implead the legal heirs of the original complainant, no steps were taken by the power of attorney holder to that effect. So the Commission finds failure on the part of the power of attorney holder to proceed the matter in proper way. In this juncture evaluation of evidence is not needed and hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 28th day of April , 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2
Ext.A1: Copy of GST invoice dated 20/12/2019 issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.A2: Copy of terms and conditions of warranty of the subject product issued by the
opposite party to the complainant .
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
