By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant purchased one Videocon LED 32-inch color T V from the first opposite party on 05/07/2017 paying 18,000/- rupees. The TV become defective within 4 days after purchase and the complainant informed the opposite party and the opposite party rectified the defect also. But thereafter nearly two years i.e., on 18/05/2019 the TV again became defective and as a result multimedia, USB, HDMI etc. became non-working. In short, the TV totally became defective. The complainant informed the first opposite party and also second opposite party several times.  The reply was that the TV has got warranty only for one year and thereafter up to two years subject to certain conditions. The opposite party told to the complainant that his TV will be serviced provided on payment and that may come up to 4,500/- rupees. But at the time of purchase of TV, a warranty card was issued stating that 3 years warranty and the first opposite party made believe the complainant that the TV was got 3 years warranty. The opposite party said that there is endorsement in the warranty card that the warranty is only up to 1 year.  The complainant submit that he studied only up to 10^th standard and working as driver and he is not able to write English and also to understand what is written in English. The act of the opposite party that printing warranty of three years in a bold letter and writing in micro scope letters that the warranty is limited up to one year is an unfair trade practice and the complainant is not able to spend huge money for the service of the TV and so the prayer is to refund the cost of T V along with compensation of 10,000/- and cost. The complainant state that the TV has got three years warranty.

2.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice first opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The second opposite party though notice was received not entered appearance hence called him and set exparte.

3.         The first opposite party filed version and denied the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The first opposite party denied that the complainant purchased Videocon LED 32-inch color TV worth Rs.18,000/- on 05/07/2017, the TV become defective within 4 days of purchase, display color became fade, informed the company, rectified the defect. The opposite party also denied that the TV became defective again within two years i.e., before 18/03/2019, board of the TV became defective, multimedia, USB, HDMI etc. became non- working ultimately the TV itself became totally none working. The opposite party denied that the complainant informed the opposite party on several occasions, warranty was only one year, after one year up to two years, service charge and cost of the parts may come up to Rs.4,500/-, then only the TV can be made in to working condition, while purchasing TV there was endorsement in capital letters that 3-year warranty, there was endorsement in small English letters stating one year warranty, cheated the complainant.  All the statement of the complainant are false and so the opposite party denied the averments in the complaint.

4.         The opposite party admit that the complainant purchased one TV manufactured by second opposite party. The first opposite party is doing business of electronic equipment for the last several years, which is trust worthy establishment. The opposite party distributing instruments of various companies. The object of the   complainant is to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party through the false complaint. The opposite party sold the TV to the complainant but the warranty and other benefits are bound to provide by second opposite party. There is no responsibility on the first opposite party regarding the product. More over the first opposite party submit that the complainant never approached first opposite party stating that TV has got complaint.

5.         The first opposite party submit that the TV purchased by the complainant has got one year warranty and also two years extended warranty subject to the compliance of the conditions.  The opposite party submit that the complainant availed service from unauthorized agencies against the warranty condition. The first opposite party submit that the dispute between the complainant and second opposite party is being violation of agreement, that is to be referred to arbitrator and so the consumer Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since the fact are being as stated the opposite party vehemently denying the entire averments in the complaint. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of this first opposite party. If the complainant has got any grievance regarding the violation of agreement the complainant ought to have approached civil court for the remedy. The opposite party submit that the Consumer Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The opposite party also submit that the complainant has not suffered any mental or financial loss. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and so the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.

6.         The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is photo copy of cash invoice dated 05/07/2017. Ext. A2 is copy of warranty card. The opposite party did not file any document.

7.         Heard both side, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the TV involved in the complaint is defective or not?
3. Relief and cost?

8.         Pont No.1 & 2

The dispute with respect to a color T V purchased from the 1^st opposite party since it became defective within the period of warranty. The complainant and the first opposite party are within the jurisdiction of this commission.  The first opposite party contended that there is arbitration clause and so the commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint but the Commission do not find any merit in the contention of the first opposite party since the presence of arbitration clause in warranty condition oust the jurisdiction of the Commission. I t is a well settled position that the presence of arbitration clause will not take away the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission and so we do not find any merit in the contention of the first opposite party regarding the question of jurisdiction.

9.         The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased color TV of 32 inches from the first opposite party and the same became defective within the period of warranty.  The complainant produced Ext. A2 document to show the warranty of the T V. Ext. A1 document shows that the TV has got 1-year original warranty and extended two years warranty. Ext. A2 document describes in bold letters that Videocon extended warranty offer card 3 years warranty. The warranty card further contended that the extended warranty is applicable to purchase done by consumer between January 01, 2016 and December 31, 2016.The warranty card reveal the date of purchase as 04/07/2017. Considering the date of purchase the extended warranty is not available to a consumer who purchased the product after 31^st 2016. In this complaint the purchased date being 04/07/2017 the complainant is beyond this scope of extended warranty as per Ext. A2 document. But it can be seen that Ext. A2 document is the warranty card issued by the first opposite party to the complainant on behalf of second opposite party the manufacturer of the TV. The complainant averred that the first opposite party made believe the complainant that the TV has got 3 years extended warranty. A consumer on receipt of Ext. A2 naturally believe from the averment in Ext. A2 document that the product has got 3 years warranty. The complainant further contended that the extended warranty has written in a bold letter but the conditions applicable and the period of the applicability of warranty has written in a microscopic letter. The perusal of the Ex.t A2 document endorsed the averment of the complainant.

10.       The first opposite party has stated that he has entrusted to sell the product and all other service and incidental things to be done by second opposite party, the manufacturer. But it can be seen that the first opposite party delivered Ext. A2 document to complaint and made him believe that the product has got 3 years warranty.  So, we find that the act of the first opposite party is unfair trade practice and he is liable to provide correct and proper information to a consumer. In this complaint the first opposite party failed to furnish correct information to the complainant, consumer.

11.       The grievance of the complainant is that the product became defective within the period of extended warranty. He prays for the rectification of the defect and also compensation and cost. Ext. A1 is the purchase bill of the product which shows the cost of TV as 16,400/-. The complainant has not produced any document to show the exact and extend of defect to the product, so the only remedy can be provided is to direct rectification of the defect of the product. The first opposite party submitted that the complainant never approached first opposite party with the complaint to the product. But after filing this complaint the opposite party has not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complaint. So, the contention of the first opposite party is worthless. It is also to be noted that the second opposite party remained exparte despite service of notice.  Considering the entire fact and circumstances the commission allows the complaint as follows; -

1. The opposite parties are here by directed rectify the defect of the TV and make it in a proper working condition.
2. If the opposite parties are not able to rectify the defect of the TV as stated above the opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of the TV Rs.16,400/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment.
3. The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation and cost will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

Dated this 20^th day of April, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2

Ext.A1: photocopy of cash invoice dated 05/07/2017.

Ext.A2: Photocopy of warranty card.

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

VPH