28th day of October 2024
CC 214/23 filed on 09/05/2023
Complainant : Sanilkumar P.S., S/o Subramanyan P.N.,
Pottepparambil House, Pozhankavu P.O., Panangad,
Thrissur – 680 665.
(In Person)
Opposite Party : Manager, Grace Laser Jet Technology, No.85 A,
1st Floor, 100 feet ROA, Ranga complex,
Opp. Kalyan Jewellers, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore.
Factory Address : No.1, Subashchandrabose Nagar,
Civil Aerodrome Road, Sish Colony, Ainganallur,
Coimbatore 641 014.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :
1) The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased a 43-inch Eye Plus LED TV from the opposite party (OP) for ₹ 17,000/- on 30 April 2022. During the purchase, the opposite party assured the complainant that if the TV faced any issues, they would replace it within a year and provide free services for the next two years.
After three months, the TV started exhibiting minor issues. The complainant promptly informed the opposite party through their designated phone number and via WhatsApp. The opposite party promised to replace the TV. However, since the issues seemed to subside, the complainant decided not to proceed with the replacement at that time. In December 2022, when the TV started malfunctioning again, the complainant promptly informed the opposite party through their phone number and continued communication through WhatsApp. The opposite party instructed the complainant to courier the TV to their company for inspection. Acting responsibly and diligently, the complainant sent the TV via DTDC Kodavalur on 23 December 2022 and informed the opposite party of the shipment, providing their name and phone number on the parcel. When the complainant followed up on 26 December 2022, the opposite party confirmed that the parcel had arrived at their unit. The complainant also furnished the TV bill and parcel receipt via WhatsApp as requested. The opposite party assured the complainant that they would inspect the product and get back to them, but no further communication was received. After several follow-ups, the complainant eventually contacted the company owner, who confirmed that the old TV had been received and a new one would be sent soon. However, this pattern of communication delays continued for a few more days.
Later, the complainant received a message from a different phone number and a photo stating that the TV had been damaged and that ₹13,000/- would be required to service it. When the complainant objected and mentioned the possibility of legal action, the opposite party offered to service the TV for ₹6,000/- instead.
Despite the complainant registering a complaint with the Thrissur District Police, no resolution was granted. The actions of the opposite party constitute unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service, as the complainant had sent the TV responsibly following the opposite party's instructions. The opposite party's negligence caused further damage to the TV, and no satisfactory solution was provided. The complainant seeks the following reliefs:
- Refund of ₹17,000/- the purchase price of the TV.
- Reimbursement of ₹2,500/- for parcel charges.
- Compensation of ₹10,000/- for mental agony, financial loss, unfair trade practices, and deficiency in service.
2) On receiving the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party, whereas the opposite party neither appeared before the Commission nor submitted any version. Hence, proceedings against the opposite party were set ex-parte, and the case was posted for the complainant's evidence.
3) When the Case came for evidence, the complainant filed the proof affidavit in which they affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. The complainant produced two documents marked as Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the Invoice No.540, dtd.30/04/22 issued by the opposite party for Rs.17,500/-. Ext. A2 is the DTDC courier receipt dtd. 23/12/2020.
4) The Commission reviewed the affidavit filed and perused the documents produced in detail. The evidence provided by the complainant through Ext. A1 establishes the purchase of the product and Ext. A2, the shipment of the product back to the opposite party. The complainant spent a huge amount of Rs. 17,000/- on purchasing the brand new TV, having faith in its quality, but the TV began showing defects within the first year. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 upholds the right of consumers to receive goods of merchantable quality, in good working condition, free from defects, and durable for a reasonable period, considering their normal use. Under the law, the opposite party is morally and legally obligated to provide the agreed-upon services, including replacement or repair, without charge. Despite repeated follow-ups, the opposite party failed to act promptly or provide a satisfactory resolution. Furthermore, they later claimed that the TV was damaged and demanded ₹13,000/- for repairs, later reducing this amount to ₹6,000/-. This approach contradicts the opposite party's earlier commitment to replace the TV without cost if malfunctions occurred within one year of purchase. The opposite party has breached its promise and failed to meet the standards required by law, leading to an undue burden on the complainant. The opposite party's failure to promptly inspect the TV and provide a suitable resolution further substantiates the claim of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service and has to be compensated. Based on the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to a refund and compensation from the opposite party.
Further, the opposite party had not cared to enter an appearance or file the written version before the Commission despite receiving the Commission's notice to that effect. The opposite party's conscious failure to submit their written version amounts to an admission of allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The Hon'ble NCDRC expressed the same view in the order dated 09/10/2014 in RP 578/2017 [2017 (4) CPR 590].
5) In the result, the complaint is allowed, and the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant :
a) the entire amount of Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand only) paid by the complainant as the purchase cost of the TV,
b) a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards the cost and compensation of this complaint.
The order shall be complied within one month of receiving the copy of
this order, failing which, the complainant is entitled to a 12% interest per annum for the entire amount till realisation from the date of the order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 28th day of October 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 Invoice No.540, dtd.30/04/22 issued by the opposite party for
Rs.17,500/-.
Ext. A2 DTDC courier receipt dtd. 23/12/2020.
Id/-
President
