IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

O R D E R

           SMT. N.R. ROOPA, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 (herein after called as opposite parties) for claiming to replace the defective T.V or to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings etc.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant working in Kodagu Institute of Science in Madikeri from May,2014.  He deputed to Mandya Medical College for two years from June 2017 to May 2019.  During that time in 16^th September 2018 the complainant purchased Akai Smart LED TV from Girias electrical show room.  Initially it was working well but in June 2019 some software issues started.  The complainant requested to service through customer care.  After that the authorized service person from opposite party no.2 attended it.  But he is not able to solve the issue.  So the complainant contacted technical person of opposite party no.2.  He advised to update the software and brought the new software and updated.  But issue did not solve the technical person told to replace the main board (PCB) of the TV.   After that again the complainant called customer care and place the request.  Initially they send the PCB through some other local courier and they denied to deliver it to opposite party no.2 and sent it back.

3. Then the Chief Executive Jetinder Singh called the complainant and said that he will send it through DTDC Courier and will track the same.  Finally it reached the service center on 25^th July 2019.  Service person came and installed the new board, but it was not pairing with TV.  So installed the old one and went back.  After that the complainant spoken with Chief Executive, he assured that will solve the problem by contacting their technical team and will be solved as soon as possible.  The complainant contacted them many times through call and whats app and they telling that we are discussing the issue with their technical team.  But they dragged it till  16^th September 2019 which is a last day of warranty.  On 24^th September 2019 the complainant got a message that your television repair completed.  Without resolving the issues they closed the complaint and warranty period is also ended by that time.

4. The complainant further submitted that inspite of several complaint to the opposite parties all his efforts went in vain.  Hence he constrained to file this complaint before this Commission for seeking the remedy as stated in para no.1 of this order.

5. On receipt of the complaint notice has been ordered to issue to opposite party nos.1 to 3.  Inspite of service of notice opposite part nos.1 to 3 remained absent without sufficient reason and cause.  Hence opposite parties called out as absent and placed exparte.  The Commission allowed the complaint to substantiate his case in this context he filed his affidavit evidence and got marked document as exhibit C1 to C3.  Heard the arguments of the complainant.

6. The points arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service and manufacturing defect on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 if so whether they are entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under;

• Point No.1:- Partly in the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- As per the final order for the

                       following;

R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1:- As looking in to the averments of the complaint, the complainant purchased Akai Smart LED TV for Rs.21,801/- from opposite party no.3 on 16/09/2018 it’s warranty covered for one year.  This transaction clearly shows on seeing the documents produced by the complainant marked as exhibit C1 and C2.

9. It is further case of the complainant that in the month of June 2019 some software issue started the complainant requested a service through customer care.  Authorized service person of opposite party no.2 attended it, but he is not able to solve the issue.  After that the complainant contacted technical person of opposite party no.2.  He advised to update the software and brought the new software and updated issue did not solved and technical person told to replace the main board (PCB) of the TV.  Even after remainder for several times, service person came and installed the new board, but it was not pairing with T.V.  So installed the old one and went back.  After that the complainant contacted the opponents several times to resolve the issue but they did not resolve the issue of TV, they dragged it till expiry of warranty.  Thereby this itself clearly goes to show that there is a manufacturing defect.  When the problem is started it is well within the warranty.  It is also clearly shows that by seeing the documents of whats App conversation between the complainant and opposite parties marked as exhibit C3.  In this regard we come to the conclusion that TV is not working properly.  No doubt when the problem started it is covered under warranty.  But the opposite parties are unable to get it repaired thereby it is clear case of manufacturing defect of the TV and the failure of the opposite parties to get it repaired in proper manner  amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite parties.  Accordingly we come to the conclusion that the opposite parties directed to replace the defective TV or alternatively the opposite parties directed to repay a sum of Rs.21,801/- along with cost at the rate of 8% per annum from 01/06/2019 till the date of realization and compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service and cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/- and opposite party nos.1to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Consumer Welfare fund. Accordingly, we answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

10. Point No.2:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally held liable to replace the defective TV to the complainant or alternatively the opposite parties directed to repay a sum of Rs.21,801/- to the complainant along with interest at 8% per annum from 01/06/2019 till date of realization.
3. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service to the complainant and the cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.
4. And opposite party Nos.1 t6o 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Consumer Welfare fund.
5. This order is to be complied by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to have a redressal as per law.
6. Furnish copy of the order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.
7. For the non compliance of the order complainant is at liberty to file E.P under section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 23^rd DAY OF OCTOBER,2020)

   (N.R. ROOPA)         (M.S.RAMACHANDRA)      (B. NIRMALA KUMAR)

      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT                         MEMBER