1.Case of the complainant:-
On 13/12/2018 complainant had purchased one LED TV made by opposite party No.2 &3 worth Rs. 33700/- from opposite party No.1 shop. At the time of purchasing the TV, opposite parties assured that the above TV has three years warranty. But after six months of its use, it got dyfunct. Some lines found in the display of the TV. Complainant informed this to opposite party No.1, but nobody came to complainant’s house to repair the TV. Due to continuous call from complainant, two persons came to complainant’s house after one month to check the TV. After checking the TV they stated that the defect was not due to the fault of complainant, but the TV itself was defective. But they also did not repair the TV. There after complainant approached the authorised service centre of LED TV, but nothing happened. Hence this complaint.
2. Claim of the complainant is that she is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and the financial loss sustained to her and for the deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and opposite party No.1 did not turn up. Hence opposite party No.1 set exparte. Opposite party No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel before the Commission and filed version.
4. In their version, they stated that complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands. Complainant purchased the LED TV on 13/12/2018 and complainant reported the complaint regarding picture problem on 19/08/2019. That means after about 7 months which shows that the LED was working perfectly, since the date of purchase and therefore it cannot be said that, there was any manufacturing defect in the TV. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the complainant fails to disclose any cause of action against the opposite parties, the said complaint is liable to be rejected at the outset without going in to the merits of the complaint.
5. Opposite parties attended the complaint and confirmed that the defect was due to the external reason and panel got damaged. The same was communicated to the customer that the defect was not covered under warranty but the complainant had failed to understand the actual situation. They also stated that the present case the alleged complaint relates to defects in goods which only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no manufacturing defects in the LED TV and the complainant has come up with a concocted story just to harass opposite party No.2 and 3. More over the terms and conditions of the warranty clearly specifies that “Breakage of LED screen/plastic parts due to mishandling“ is excluded from warranty under the head “limitations of warranty”. Complainant is grossly failed to show any deficiency or lack of service on the part of opposite party No.2 and 3 , hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the basis of above facts.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, she filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents she produced were marked as Ext.A1 & A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of the warranty registration card and Ext.A2 is the copy of invoice dated 13/12/2018.
7. But opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not file affidavit and documents to prove their case. Hence no affidavit recorded from their side.
8. The allegations against opposite parries are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced two documents which are very supportive to prove her case. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
9. Hence we allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.33,700/-(Rupees Thirty three thousand only) the cost of the LED TV to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 18th day of March, 2022.
