By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1. The complaint in short is as follows:-
On 24/12/2022, complainant purchased one headphone (Head phone fingers wireless rock-n-roll lounge) worth Rs.1200/- from opposite party No.1 shop. When he started using the head phone, he realised that the head phone is not properly working. The length was not able to adjust for different persons. It was not clipped properly. Then complainant approached opposite party on 29/12/2022, but they are not ready to change the defective headphone with a new headphone or not ready to refund the amount. Opposite party No.1 scolded complainant that, it is an intentional act of complainant that caused the damage of the headphone. At the time of purchasing the product from opposite party No.1 they assured that the product had one year warranty.
2. But opposite party No.1 was not ready to rectify the defect of the headphone during the warranty period. It is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
5. In their version opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that on 24/12/2022 complainant, his wife and daughter came to opposite party No.1 shop and they purchased the above said headphone having one year warranty. They checked the quality and sound quality of the headphone so many times and they purchased the product. At the time of purchasing the product, opposite party No.1 gave directions to complainant that there is no warranty for damage caused to the product due to physical damage. They again stated that the above direction clearly stated in the bill /tax invoice provided to the customers at the time of purchase.
6. After four days of purchase of the product complainant approached opposite party and stated that the above headset got damaged due to falling of the headset in the floor. At that time also opposite party No.1 said to complainant that there is no warranty for the damage of the product caused due to physical damage. But complainant behaved very badly to opposite party No.1 and used filthy languages in front of the other customers. Moreover he threatened opposite party No.1 that he will file cases against opposite party No.1 and he will take steps to close the shop. Due to the performance of complainant, so many customers gone out from the shop without purchasing any product. It caused heavy loss to opposite party No.1. Due to the act of complainant the sale at opposite party No.1 shop was gradually decreased.
7. Opposite party No.1 again contended that it is the duty of complainant to complained about the product at the time of purchasing the product or he can approach on the very next day to opposite party No.1 shop for telling about the complaint. In this matter complainant approached opposite party No.1 after 5 days of the purchase of headset. There is collusion in the act of complainant. There is no scope for a complaint like this. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
8. In their version opposite party No.2 stated that the present complaint filed by complainant is a false, frivolous, baseless and not maintainable in law. There is no cause of action. They again stated that as per the records kept with them, it is clear that the complainant has not approached opposite party No.2 for any service. Hence this complaint is not maintainable. Moreover complainant has not issued any notice before filing the present complaint. Opposite party No.2 again submitted that they render and provide good service to the complainant and always rectified all the alleged grievance and defect. There is no specific pleadings and averments regarding business of complainant as well as no particulars of how he sustains the alleged losses. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
9. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 & A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of bill/invoice given by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated 24/12/2022. Ext.A2 is the copy of advertisement about ‘fingers’ products. Thereafter opposite parties are also filed affidavit but no documents filed.
10. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavits and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, reliefs and cost.
11. Point No.1 and 2:-
Case of the complainant is that the headphone worth Rs.1200/- got damaged within 5 days of its purchase and opposite party No.1 was not ready to rectify the defect of the headphone that complainant purchased from their shop. In this matter opposite party No.1 stated that complainant had purchased the product after thoroughly checked the sound quality and the product quality of headphone. They admitted that the headphone had one year warranty. They also argued that, they informed the complainant in advance that there is no warranty for the physical damage of the product and they also stated that they already mentioned about this in the bill or tax invoice itself. Moreover they stated that complainant approached them after 4 days of purchase of headphone and he told them that the headphone fell down and got damaged. Then opposite party told to complainant that there is no warranty for the physical damage caused to the product. Then complainant misbehaved to opposite party No.1 at their shop in front of other customers and customers are left the shop and it caused heavy financial damage to opposite party No.1. They also stated that they need Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the misbehaviour of complainant at opposite party No.1 shop.
12. In this matter complainant filed two documents. Ext. A1 is the bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant. From that document it is clear that complainant purchased a headphone worth Rs.1200/- from opposite party No.1 shop. In that document opposite party No.1 did not mention anything about the warranty of the product and warranty void conditions. In their version they stated that there is no warranty for the product damaged due to physical damage. But that direction was not specified in the back side of Ext. A1 document. In their version they stated that the product has one year warranty. But from Ext.A1 there is nothing mentioned about the period of warranty. In that document opposite party No.1 stated that one customer should bring the warranty card with him for any problem arises. In this matter there is no warranty card provided by opposite party No.1 to complainant .There is no case for opposite parties that they provided the warranty card to complainant. Moreover there is no document produced by opposite party No1 to prove that complainant had made a bad situation at their shop and that leads to loss of customers from their shop. Without submitting any proof they stated that complainant must compensate them for the loss sustained to them due to the act of complainant and they need Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the act of complainant .
13. Opposite party No.2, the manufacturer of the product was present before the Commission and filed version and affidavit. In their first appearance itself they were ready to change the headphone with a new one. As per the direction of commission they provided a new headphone to complainant and complainant is happy with the new headphone and he submitted the above facts before the Commission. Hence we are on the opinion that opposite party No.2 is not liable to compensate the complainant. Moreover opposite party No.2 submitted before the Commission that complainant did not approached them or did not sent a notice to them about the defect of the headphone. They are not aware about the issue of the headphone of the complainant. In that area we are on the opinion that it is the duty of opposite party No.1 to inform the defect of the headphone to opposite party No.2. Poor customer is not aware about the manufacturer of the product. In this matter opposite party No.1 did not take any steps to inform the defect of the headphone to opposite party No2, which caused within 4 days of its purchase Instead of acting properly they misbehaved towards the complainant at their shop. Moreover they wanted Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation from complainant for the defects of the headphone which caused without any intentional act of complainant. There is no document to prove that complainant misbehaved at their shop and it affected the name of opposite party No.1.
14. It is the duty of opposite party No.1 to change the headset which damaged during the warranty period. They also admitted the headphone has one year warranty. Complainant submitted the headphone before the Commission and we realised that it is not a physical damage. Moreover opposite party No.2 also checked the headphone and they were ready to provide a new headphone instead of the defective headphone. As per the direction of Commission they provided a new headphone to complainant. But opposite party No.1 was not amenable for any settlement and not ready to compensate the complainant . Moreover they demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the damaged headphone sold by them. It is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.1. One of the contention of opposite party No.1 is that complainant can approached them on that day itself or on the very next day when he saw the damage. But he approached them after 4 days. These type of contentions are ridiculous.
15. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1 as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.1 is deficient in service.
16. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext.A1 : Copy of bill/invoice given by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated
24/12/2022.
Ext.A2 : Copy of advertisement about ‘fingers’ products.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
