IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
C.C.No. 392/2022
PRESENT
SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT
SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER
ORDER DATED: 18.11.2024
BETWEEN
Sajith K.N.,
S/o Nadarajan,
Sougandhikam, Peroor, TKMC P.O.,
Kottamkara, Kollam 691005. : Complainant
(By Adv.Shajahan A.)
AND
- Manager,
My G Electronics, Pallimukku, Kollam.
- The Managing Director,
MP’s Trading Corporation,
Door No.PP 11/368, VP Complex,
Poovattuparamba, Calicut 673008. : Opposite parties
ORDER
Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a 32” G Smart LED TV set by paying an amount of Rs.11,245/- from the 1st opposite party on 24.04.2022. The entire amount was paid by the complainant through his credit card. After receiving the above amount the 1st opposite party issued a Credit card Sale invoice bill dated 24.04.2022. Thereafter on 27.04.2022 the display of the TV showed some brightness problems and the display of the same was not in a working condition. The complainant had informed the 1st opposite party about the issue and they responded that they will contact the complainant after registering complaint with the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter no response from the opposite parties, the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party’s shop and raised his grievances and demanded to replace the TV or to refund the entire amount paid for the TV. The 1st opposite party contacted the 2nd opposite party’s customer care and toll-free number, in the presence of the complainant, but there was no response. The 2nd opposite party had failed to perform their obligation. Opposite parties were not at all willing to redress the grievances of the complainant. Moreover the 1st opposite party’s behavior towards the complainant was in a rude and negligent manner. The 2nd opposite party has not responded till this time. The dishonest and illegal act of the opposite parties, attributed the complainant great mental stress, strain, agony as well as the financial loss to the complainant. The TV purchased by the complainant had warranty of one year. At the time of purchase the 1st opposite party had given assurance that the TV had high quality, long life and maintain the required standard. The complainant strongly believes that there are manufacturing defects in the TV. Complainant has used the TV only for two days. So, the opposite parties are liable to refund the cost of the TV with interest. The warranty clause provides the opposite parties have to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant or replace the TV but the opposite parties refrained from discharging their contractual liability. This neglect and breach of the warranty clause amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is seeking compensation for the financial loss and mental agony incurred to him. Hence the complaint.
Notices were issued to the opposite parties from the Commission on 02.03.2023 and they have acknowledged the receipt of the same on 04.03.2023 but they failed to appear before the Commission nor filed any version hence they were set exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits P1 and P2 documents. The opposite parties never made any attempts to cross examine the complainant. Exhibit P1 is the My Kotak Credit Card Monthly Statement of the complainant evidencing the payment of Rs.11,245/- by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Exhibit P2 is the warranty card issued by the opposite party.
Complainant purchased the TV on the assurance of one year warranty provided in the Exhibit P2 warranty card. Furthermore the opposite parties represented that the Television was of high quality and standard and assured the complainant timely and proper after sale service. In good faith complainant relied on the assurance given by the 1st opposite party. However when the TV became defective, the complainant sought for a replacement or claimed for refunding the amount paid for the TV. They unjustly denied the necessity of the complainant. This denial of warranty as well as the breach of promised quality and assurance constitutes a violation of consumer rights.
It is crucial to highlight that the opposite parties were set exparte as they failed to appear before the Commission and failed to file their version within the stipulated time in this case. The complainant as a consumer had legitimate expectations of a reliable and durable product that would function as intended. However the opposite parties failed to meet these expectations and provide satisfactorily solution to this issue. This deficiency in service is evident in the complainant’s repeated attempts to resolve the issues. The opposite parties have failed to provide the expected level of service and have not taken sufficient responsibility to rectify the situation.
It is pertinent to note that Exhibit P2 warranty card envisages warranty against defective material workmanship for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. It is obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to keep the TV in working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant, but they failed to do so. It is clear from the materials available on the record that the opposite parties have not set right the defects of the TV or replace the same though it is a clear that defect sustained during the warranty period.
Evidence presented by the complainant along with his supporting documents clearly established his claim. It is apparent that the complainant acted in good faith and was unjustly denied the benefits he was promised. Therefore the complainant has a valid case and is entitled to the relief sought for. Based on the uncontroverted testimony of the complainant and the supporting documents Exhibit P1 and P2, it is evident that the complainant has presented sufficient evidence to substantiate his case and justify the relief he is seeking.
In the result the complaint is allowed.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to provide the complainant with a brand new Television of equivalent value and specifications within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties shall pay Rs.11,245/- to the complainant. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of the complaint ie.21.12.2022 until realization of the amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S.transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 18th day of November 2024.
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Document marked for the complainant:-Nil
Ext.P1 : My Kotak Credit Card Monthly Statement of the complainant
evidencing the payment of Rs.11,245/- by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ext.P2 : Warranty card issued by the opposite party
Witness Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
