DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of September 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 15/10/2019
CC/243/2019
M.S.Vijayan
Arunima Narangapatta,
Mannarkkad – 678 582 - Complainant
(Party in Person)
Vs
1.Keerthanam
Home Appliances,
Pazheri Plaza, Kodathippadi
Mannarkkad
2.P.E.Electronics Ltd.
Ground Floor, Techweb Centre,
New Link Road, Oshiwara,
Mumbai – 400 102
3.P.E.Electronics Ltd.,
Autocars Compound
Adalath Road,
Aurangabad – 431 005 - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A. Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
The complainant purchased a Philips LED 32PFL 3738 Model TV from the first opposite party on 29/9/2016 for Rs.17,900/- At the time of purchase the opposite party issued a warranty card of the product for 5 years. The TV became defective on 16/9/2019. The TVs video was not working and so the complainant approached the 1st opposite party as it was within the warranty period. The 1st opposite party informed him about their inability to contact the Philips Company. They advised him to contact in the number shown in the warranty card but there was no reply. Then he sent e-mail, but was of no use. The complainant sent registered letter in the address shown in the warranty card and user manual but it returned showing “addressee left” or “refused”. The complainant could not use the TV set from 16/9/2019. The manufacturer has failed to give reasonable service which is expected as per the warranty card. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to replace the TV with a new one or to rectify the defect in the TV as per the assurance in the warranty card and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. Even though notice was served on the 1st opposite party, they did not appear before the Forum. So 1st opposite party’s name called absent and set exparte. 2nd and 3rd opposite party’s notice returned stating “addressee left” and it was posted for producing fresh address of OP2 & 3. Complainant filed affidavit stating that “their address could not be found after reasonable effort”. Hence notice to OP2&3 is dispensed with.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Complainant filed an IA 205/2000 to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the TV and it was allowed. The report was filed and the complainant filed objection along with an application to inspect the inner parts of the TV after opening it and to file detailed report and it was allowed. A team of expert commissioners inspected the TV and filed report.
The two reports were marked as Ext.C1 & C2 and evidence closed.
Heard the complainant
Issues
- Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation ?
Issue 1 &2
We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and the report filed by expert commissioners. Ext.A1 invoice shows the purchase of Philips LED 32PFL3733 model TV from the first opposite party on 29/9/2016 for Rs.17,900/- Ext.A2 is the warranty card showing warranty for 5 years from the date of invoice.
As per the complainant’s contention, the TV did not function from 16/9/2019. The TV’s audio was working but there was no display. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the TV to get the TV repaired as per the warranty. But the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to contact in the number shown in the warranty card. Though he tried to contact the manufacturer through phone and email, all attempts were in vain.
The complainant approached the first opposite party, the shop from where he purchased it when the TV became defective. Normally one approaches the dealer when the purchased item becomes defective. It is the duty of the dealer to cure the defect and incase if it is not possible, the dealer has to contact the manufacturer to get it repaired or replaced. The dealer is equally liable as the manufacturer when a product become defective within the warranty period. He cannot wash off his hands by merely advising the complainant to contact the manufacturer.
The product in question has a warranty for 5 years from 29/09/2016 and as per the complaint it became defective from 16/9/2019 and is well within the warranty period.
As per Ext.C1 report “while the TV is switched on with cable connected, only audio was clearly heard but there was no picture” and they reported that this may be due to the fault of the LED panel/display unit and they did not open the TV as it was under warranty. But in Ext.C2, after detailed inspection they concluded that the “ LED panel is under complaint”. So it is clear that the TV became defective within the warranty period.
1st opposite party is the dealer and 2nd & 3rd opposite party (same entity) is the manufacturer.
The complainant made several attempts to contact the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, but all in vain. The process issued by this Forum also returned stating “addressee left” and even after reasonable effort, the complainant could not produce their new address and notice to them is dispensed with.
In the absence of the manufacturer the dealer who stood to gain profits at the expenses of the complainant is equally liable for repairing or replacing the product when it becomes defective within the warranty period. The buyer does not have any contract with the manufacturing company. He buys the product from the dealer. A dealer cannot avoid his liability to carry out the terms of the warranty and in turn he may involve the manufacturer in fulfilling his obligation under warranty. Here the first opposite party, the dealer is equally liable to compensate the complainant as he had failed to comply with the warranty terms and provide service to the complainant.
As the first opposite party remained exparte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
The complainant was forced to file this complaint before the Forum because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has definitely undergone mental agony and financial loss and inconvenience as the newly purchased TV became defective within the warranty period itself for which the opposite parties have to compensate the complainant.
In result, the complaint is allowed. Even though all the opposite parties have joint and several liability, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the 1st opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.17,900/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand nine hundred only) with interest @9% from 16/9/2019 and to pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) as compensation, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as the cost of this complaint and they may in turn recover it from the manufacturer. Once the order is executed the complainant is directed to return the defective TV to the first opposite party.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of September 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Invoice No.894 dated 29/9/16 for purchase of TV Set
Ext.A2 – Warranty card
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of consumer guidelines
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of complainant’s letter dated 19/9/19 addressed to OP 2&3
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of postal acknowledge card
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Commission Report
C1 – Commission report
C2 – Commission Report
Cost : Rs.5,000/- allowed as cost of this litigation.
