Kerala

Idukki

CC/239/2023

Tibin Shaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joy Watch House and Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.12.2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  29^th   day of  October,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.239/2023

Between

Complainant     :     Tibin Shaji, S/o. Shaji,

Manackal House,

Kattakkala, Pachadi P.O.,

Nedumkandam, Idukki – 685553.

          (By Adv: Babichen V. George)

And

Opposite Parties     : 1. Joy Watch House & Mobile,

West Junction, Nedumkandam.

       2. Sanjo Electronics,

Opposite St. George School, Kattappana,

           Kattappana P.O., Pin – 685515.

       3. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

Building Orchid, Block E,

Embassy Tech Village,

Marathahalli Outer Ring Road,

Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru – 560103.

 Represented by its Managing Director.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1.  This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant had purchased a TV, namely, Mi LED, 4 x 108 cm, for Rs.29,999/-, from the shop of 1^st opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of TV and 2^nd opposite party is authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite party.  TV had an initial one year warranty which the complainant had extended by purchasing extra 2 years warranty commencing from 15.10.2022 and ending by 14.10.2024.  TV was installed by 2^nd opposite party as instructed by 3^rd opposite party.  TV had functioned well for the first 2 years.  However, on 23.9.2023, TV display become blurred and later the TV had ceased functioning. Complainant had informed 1^st opposite party and had sent details of bill and extended warranty.  Despite repeated phone calls, 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had not  responded.  Complainant had then filed a registered complaint vide toll free customer care number of 3^rd opposite party.  Upon registration of complaint, it was informed by whatsapp that the service personnel to be deputed by 2^nd opposite party will look into the complaint.  Mobile number of 2^nd opposite party was also sent to complainant as a whatsapp message.  Despite repeated calls from complainant, nobody had come to repair or service the TV.  2^ndopposite party had asked the complainant to send a photo showing the defects of TV.  It was done by complainant and despite this, his complaint was not addressed. When 2^nd opposite party was contacted, he informed the complainant that they have not get approval from 3^rd opposite party.  TV has remained faulty, since the last 55 days of filing of this complaint.  Opposite parties are jointly liable for this deficiency in service.  Complainant had informed 1^st opposite party about the defect, on the date when it occurred.  Yet for about one month, there was no response from him.  Complainant alleges that selling goods without any responsibility to service the same cannot be excused from the side of opposite parties.  All are jointly and severally liable for the aforesaid deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant hence prays for a direction against opposite parties to repair the TV and to rectify this defect after servicing the same within a reasonable period of 10 days whenever a complaint is lodged before 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties in future.  In the alternate, he prays for a replacement of defective TV with a new one with the same specifications.  He also seeks a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and even amount of compensation for the mental agony and sufferings undergone by him and his family.  He also seeks litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/-.  

 

2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to three opposite parties.  Despite serving of notice, none have appeared.  Hence they were set exparte.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit and same was read in evidence.  Exts.P1 to P4 were marked.  We have heard the learned counsel for complainant.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there was deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for ?

3)  Final order and costs  ?

 

3.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of allegations leveled in the complaint regarding deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  These affidavit averments remain unchallenged.  Exts.P1 to P4 documents further support the case of complainant.  Exts.P1 and P2 are 2 invoices relating to purchase of TV from 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.P3 is photocopy of e-mail communication sent to complainant informing him that his extended warranty for the TV is from 15.10.2022 till 14.10.2024.  Ext.P4 is copy of details relating to the extended warranty plan.

 

According to complainant, display of TV was blurred and later it has ceased to function after 2 years of its purchase.  Exact date is 23.9.2023.  This falls within the extended warranty period.  Complainant has pleaded and given evidence that despite repeated approaches, his TV was not repaired or serviced.  These affidavit averments remain unchallenged and prove the case of complainant that there was deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 3.  In the course of present proceedings, IA 1/23 was filed by complainant seeking a direction against opposite parties 1 and 2 to repair the TV.  An interim order was passed directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to service the TV and make it functional within 7 days of receipt of a copy of the said order.  Complainant has mentioned in his affidavit that the TV was repaired on 11.12.2023 pursuant to interim directions given by this Commission.  There was a delay of 61 days in servicing the TV.  That first portion of first relief and altered relief for replacement of TV is to be ignored, that the prayer is confined only to the remaining reliefs.

 

These submissions are noted. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the first relief or alternate relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Remaining 2 reliefs are for compensation and litigation costs.  Complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and resultant inconvenience caused to him along with mental agony.  He has sought  Rs.10000/- as litigation costs.  TV itself was purchased only for a sum of Rs.29,999/-.  Complainant does not specify any particular loss occasioned to him which would make grant of compensation prayed for by him justifiable.  Considering the circumstances, we are of the view that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- will suffice to met the ends of justice.  So also for the very same reasons, we are of the considered view that Rs.2000/- can be awarded as litigation costs.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

4.  Point No.3:

 

In the result, complaint is allowed in part upon the following terms:

 

1.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint, i.e., 7.12.2023, until payment or realisation.

 

2.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay  costs of Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand rupees only) to complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

Order shall be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of same.  If not, complainant is at liberty to get the order executed in accordance with law. I.A. 01/23 filed seeking interim direction is closed. Parties to take back extra copies, without delay.

 

Pronounced by this commission on this the 29^th  Day of October,  2024.

 

   Sd/-

       SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

   Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -  Tibin Shaji.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Exts.P1 & 2-2 invoices relating to purchase of TV from 1^st opposite party.

Ext.P3      -  Photocopy of e-mail communication sent to complainant informing him that

           his extended warranty for the TV is from 15.10.2022 till 14.10.2024.  

Ext.P4     -  Copy of details relating to the extended warranty plan.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR