By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President
Complaint in short is as follows:
1. The complainant purchased LED TV for Rs.20,000/- on 11/09/2016, which is manufactured by Philips company. There was 5 years warranty for the TV. While warranty was in force the TV became defective during the month August 2018. The complainant registered complaint before the first opposite party and as a result two days after some persons came to the residence of complainant and the defective parts unscrewed and taken away. The opposite party so far did not return the defective parts. The complainant though contacted several times with the first opposite party there was no result. Hence the complainant prays for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- due to the defective service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the first opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased LED TV for Rs.20,000/- on 11/09/2016 and there was warranty for the TV for 5 years. But the opposite party denied that the complainant called to the shop of the first opposite party during the month of August 2018 and registered a complaint on 11/08/2018 and thereafter two days the defective parts of the TV was unscrewed and taken away and not yet returned back and there is no redressal of grievance are all not correct and they are not known to the first opposite party. The first opposite party submitted that they did not receive any complaint from the complainant as stated.
3. The opposite party further submitted that the TV was manufactured by Philips company and the warranty is given by the said company and so they are bound to rectify the complaint of the TV. Hence the complaint is defective due to non-jointer of necessary parties and the complainant is liable to implead the manufacturer of the TV. The complainant has not registered any complaint with first opposite party and if at all the complainant has filed any complaint before the first opposite party, the first opposite party might have registered the complaint before the complaint cell and the complaint registration number also might have given to the complainant. The first opposite party is not authorized to do any repair work during the warranty period. Usually if any complaint has been registered before the complaint cell there will be due message in to the mobile number of complainants. In such a situation the company directly contacts the complainant and defects also will be rectified by themselves. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant never contacted the first opposite party and never registered a complaint also. Hence the complainant has not properly explained in the complaint about the number of his complaint, the defects of the TV and which parts are taken away by the so called people of opposite party etc. So the first opposite party is not at all liable to compensate the complainant as prayed in the complaint.
4. Since the opposite party has taken a contention that the manufacturer has to be party in the proceedings, the complainant filed IA 23/2022 to Implead the manufacturer of the TV. The complainant impleaded second opposite party the manufacturer of the TV and notice was issued to the supplemental second opposite party. The complainant produced warranty card in which the address of the opposite party has stated. The commission issued notice to the supplemental opposite party to appear on 22/03/2022 and thereafter to appear on 21/07/2022. But both notices were returned stating that the “addressee left”. Hence notice to the second opposite party treated as served and due to nonappearance the second opposite party set them exparte.
5. The complainant also sought direction to first opposite party to furnish the correct address if any available of the manufacturer of the product. But the first opposite party could not furnish fresh address as demanded by the complainant.
6. The complainant and the first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is retail invoice cash/credit for Rs.20,000/- dated 11/09/206 issued by Kannankandy Fridge Centre, Kottakkal. Ext. A2 is warranty card issued for Philips LED TV by second opposite party dated 11/09/2016. The first opposite party though filed affidavit no document is seen filed.
Heard complainant and first opposite party, perused affidavit and documents.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant purchased LED TV worth Rs.20,000/- from the first opposite party on 11/09/2016. The said TV became defective on 11/08/2018 and he contacted first opposite party and registered the complaint. Thereafter two days some personals of opposite parties came to the complainant and defective parts unscrewed and taken away. So far the defective parts are not returned by the persons taken the defective parts.
8. The first opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased the TV from the first opposite party as stated in the complaint. But the opposite party denied the rest of allegations that the complaint was registered, some persons come to the complainant, the defective parts unscrewed and taken away etc. The further contention of the opposite party is that they are not the authorized persons to rectify the defect of the LED TV during the warranty period. According to them the manufacturer is liable to rectify the defect of LED TV during the valid warranty period. The fact is that the first opposite party admitted sale of LED TV to the complainant and the warranty of the product is 5 years. The complainant filed this complaint before this Commission during the warranty period and so it is the explosibility of the first opposite party to make available service to the complainant and also furnish the exact details of the manufacturer. The complainant in this complaint made all the efforts to contact the manufacturer as well as the authorized service people of the product. But all the efforts stands miserably failed. So we find that the first opposite party is equally liable to redress the grievance of the complainant along with the manufacturer. We find that the product of the complainant was defective and he duly made attempt to contact responsible people and some of them contacted the complainant and the defective parts of the article unscrewed and taken away. Now the complainant /consumer is without any authority to approach for his remedy. So, the commission finds that to save the genuine interest of the consumer the first opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the product with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of purchase to till date of payment. The complainant is also entitled reasonable amount as compensation and we assess the same as Rs.20,000/-. The complaint is seen filed in the year 2018 and he was running pillar to post for the genuine redressal of grievance. Hence the complainant is entitled reasonable amount as cost also. We allow Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The first opposite party is being the seller and the second opposite party is being the manufacturer is equally liable to compensate the complainant.
In the above fact and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows:-
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as cost of the LED TV with 9% interest from the date of complaint till date of order.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of defective service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and thereby caused inconnvence and hardship to the complainant.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy this order, failing which the complainant is entitled interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the entire amount as stated above from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 10th day of February, 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: Retail invoice cash/credit for Rs.20,000/- dated 11/09/206 issued by Kannan
kandy Fridge Centre Kottakkal.
Ext.A2: Warranty card issued for Philips LED TV by second opposite party dated
11/09/2016.
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
