Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/19/279

Satheesh S N - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ideal Home Appliances - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHAR LANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695010
 
Complaint Case No. CC/19/279
( Date of Filing : 27 Aug 2019 )
 
1. Satheesh S N
tvpm
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Ideal Home Appliances
tvpm
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN

:

PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR

:

MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.

:

MEMBER

 

 

C.C. No. 279/2019 Filed on 27/08/2019

ORDER DATED:  16/01/2023

 

Complainant

:

Satheesh.S.N, TC.21/477, Nedumkadu, Karamana.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties

:

  1. The Manager, Ideal Home Appliances, TC.50/2469, N.H.Road, Nemom – 695 020.

(By Adv.Gayathri.R.Krishnan)

  1. The Managing Director, Videocon Office, Plot No.296 Udhyog Vihar Phase – 2, Gurgon – 122 015.

 

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

           The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a Videocon 50inch model LED TV from the show room of 1st opposite party.  But two months before filing this petition it is noticed by the complainant that some white patches were seen on the display and also speakers were not working properly.  The complainant intimated all these things to the 1st opposite party.  But there was no response from the side of the 1st opposite party.  The complainant on 06/08/2019 went to the show room of the 1st opposite party and registered a complaint.  Even though he directly registered the complaint there was no response from the side of the 1st opposite party.  The complainant contacted the service centre, but his complaint was not resolved.  The act of 1st & 2nd opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.    

The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Even though the 2nd opposite party received notice they didn’t appeared before this Commission hence the 2nd opposite party was set ex parte.  1st opposite party has averred that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted by the 1st opposite party that they sold the LED TV of Videocon Company to the complainant.  It is also contended that the service centre of the 2nd opposite party is authorized person to clear the complaint if any.  The complainant has purchased the product in the year 2015 and he is using the LED TV for the last 3 years without any complaint.  When the complainant informed the complaint of the product to the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party registered a complaint to the service centre of the 2nd opposite party.  The 1st opposite party has done its duty without any delay and the rest of the dealings are with the service centre of the 2nd opposite party.  The service centre was not made a party in this complaint.  At the time of purchasing the LED TV the 2nd opposite party was in existence.  1st opposite party is only a dealer of the LED TV and the 2nd opposite party is liable for the manufacturing defect of the product.  Even if the damage caused within the warranty period assured by the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party is not liable   for the same.  The 1st opposite party is helpless for the manufacturing defect of the product.  The 2nd opposite party is alone responsible for the manufacturing defect of the alleged product.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 1st opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to the 1st opposite party. 

Issues to be ascertained:

(i). Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from

     the side of opposite parties 1& 2?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

 

Issues No.(i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A4 and a CD was marked as MO1.  The 1st opposite party has filed proof affidavit.  No documents were marked from the side of the 1st opposite party.  The 1st opposite party has not filed argument note.

It is admitted by the 1st opposite party that the complainant has purchased the LED TV from their show room, which is also evident from Ext.A1.  Even though the complainant registered a complaint before the 1st opposite party they have not taken any steps to resolve the complaint of the TV.  It is also admitted by the 1st opposite party that they are only the dealer of 2nd opposite party and they are not responsible for the manufacturing defect of the product.  Since the 1st opposite party being the dealer of 2nd opposite party, they are liable to cure the defect of the product sold by them, but they have not done that.  From the documents produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service form the side of the 1st & 2nd opposite parties.  Hence 1st & 2nd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.       

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1& 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 16th  day of January,  2023.

 

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

 

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R                                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 279/2019

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

PW1

:

Satheesh.S.N

                       

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

 

A1

:

Retail invoice dated 18/12/2016.

A2

:

Extended warranty offer card.

A3

:

Retail invoice dated 18/12/2016.

A4

:

Original Cash receipt dated 11/01/2019.

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

 

 

NIL

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                               

 

 

NIL

V.        COURT EXHIBIT

 

MO1

:

CD

 

 

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.