DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Tuesday the 31^st   day of October 2023

CC. 265/2022

Complainant

Rahul. B.P,

Prasanthi (HO),

Kannankara (PO),

Chelannur, Kozhikode,

PIN – 673613.

Opposite Parties

1.                Smart Care Service,

Door No. 5/752-B,

Ground floor,

Op. BSNL office,

Manakkadavu Road,

                         Pantheerankavu,

Perumanna, Kozhikode – 673 026

2.                One Plus India,                                                                                                                                                                                         5^th Floor,

Kabra Excelsiors,

Opp. Wipro Park,

80 ft. Road,

                         Koramangala,

                         1^st block, Bangalore, Karnataka,

3.                Premium Life style and Fashion India Pvt. Ltd,

Survey No. 386/2 B, 386/2 A, 382/3 A2..,

Selakarichal Village,

Sulur Taluk,

Appanaickenpatti Village,

Paladam, Coimbatore -641016

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

             This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.   The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

            On 27/04/2022 the complainant purchased One plus Y1 108 cm (43 inch) full HD LED Smart Android TV paying Rs. 24,999/- through flipkart. But the TV became defective within four months. On 1/09/2022 the complaint was reported. But there was no response from the side of the company even after 10 days. So he contacted the customer care and on 22/09/2022 he was intimated that the service engineer would come before 12 noon on that date. But nobody came. At 5.30 PM one person came and inspected the TV and stated that the issue was with the panel and that the TV would be replaced within two days. But thereafter nothing happened. When he contacted, it was informed that there was no stock and asked him to wait for two days more. But they were postponing Hence the complaint for refund of the purchase price of the TV amounting to Rs. 24,999/-, Rs. 2099/- paid for the extended warranty and Rs. 100 paid for installation of the TV. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- is also claimed.

3. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.

5. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant.
6. Heard.
7. POINT No. 1:  The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the TV purchased by him became defective within 4 months within the warranty period and the opposite parties failed to address his concerns over the TV properly.
8. PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the tax invoice, Ext A2 is the copy of the e-mail received from One Plus and Ext A3 is the screen shot of One Plus account.
9. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant. The case of the complainant regarding the deficient service of the opposite parties stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3.
10. The main prayer is for refund of the purchase price of the TV. It is well settled that to establish the claim for the total replacement by a new TV or refund of price, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert that the TV suffered from inherent manufacturing defect and unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts.  The Honourable Supreme Court in Maruthi Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra (2006(4)(SCC 644) has held that the obligation of the manufacturer under the warranty is limited only to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective. In the present case, there is no pleading or evidence that the TV is having any inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to place on record any technical/ expert report to show that the TV in question is having any inherent manufacturing defect. So the prayer for refund of the price is not allowable.
11.  However, the evidence in hand shows that the issue is that of panel and it arose during the warranty period. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to repair the TV under the warranty. Undoubtedly, the negligence and latches of the opposite parties in addressing the concerns of the complainant over the TV has   resulted in gross mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.   He is not able to enjoy the TV for the latches of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
12. Point No. 2:   In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:

1. CC 265/2022 is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to service/repair the One Plus Y1 108 cm (43 inch) full HD LED Smart Android TV of the complainant under the warranty and make it in a sound working condition.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
4. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
5. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 31^st day of October 2023.

Date of Filing: 13/10/2022

                                        Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                                PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER                                          MEMBER  

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Tax invoice

Ext A2 - Copy of the e-mail received from One Plus

Ext A3 -Screen shot of One Plus account.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties :

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 – Rahul. B.P  (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

 NIL

                                   Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

                          PRESIDENT                                          MEMBER                                              MEMBER  

True Copy,

                 Sd/-

Assistant Registrar.