Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/294/2020

S Ramachandran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,MyG - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

            SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

         SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

                                         SRI.VIJU.V.R                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.294/2020 (Filed on : 23/12/2020)

ORDER DATED : 23/08/2022

COMPLAINANT

 

S.Ramachandran Nair,

Sree Sankaram, Navaikkulam.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

Pin – 695603

 

(Party in person)

                                                                   VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The Manager,

MY G, 3 G Mobile World,

Soudha Manzil Building,

Plamoodu, Pattom.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004

 

(Exparte)

ORDER

 

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR            :MEMBER

The complainant had purchased a television from opposite party on 04/10/2019 for an amount of Rs.29990/-. The television had 3 years warranty and it became damaged on 19/09/2020. Then the complainant informed the defects of television to the opposite party. The technician from opposite party came and inspected the television. He informed the complainant to replace the panel of television within one month. But the defect of television is not repaired within the time. Thereafter they had not attended the telephone. Finally the complainant sends a message to opposite party through whatsup. Then the opposite party replied that the television was repaired within the first week of December. But the opposite party had not repaired the television. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 

2.       The opposite party filed version denying the allegations of complaint. The purchase of television is admitted. The defect of television was not informed the opposite party. The complainant had informed the defects to the service centre of TCL Company. The opposite party is only the dealer of TCL Company and they had not liable to pay compensation for deficiency in service. The complainant had not made the service centre as a party of this complaint. The complainant is liked to this product of TV and purchased from opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is totally denied by the opposite party.

3.       The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 to P4 marked from the side of complainant. The opposite party not filed proof affidavit and produced documents to prove their case.

Issues

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief.
3. Issues I & II

          We perused relevant documents on record. Ext.P3 is the copy of Retail invoice shows the price of television was Rs.29990/- dated 04/10/2019. Ext.P4 is the copy of warranty shows that the warranty will be applicable for 36 months from the date of original purchase for product LED TV. The complainant stated that the TV purchased on 04/10/2019 and damaged on 19/09/2020. But the opposite party had not replaced the panel of television. Exts.P1 & P2 is the copy of call history details. The opposite party stated that the complainant had not informed the defects of television to them and the complainant had informed the service centre of TCL Company. But the opposite party had not enquired the working of television so far. The opposite party had not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.

          In view of the above discussions, we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

          In the result, complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.29990/- as the price of television and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2500/- as the cost of proceedings. within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the amount except cost carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. After complying the order the complainant shall hand over the television to the opposite party.

             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 23^rd day of August 2022.

                                                                                      Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

                                                                                                   Sd/-

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                      VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Be/   

APPENDIX

 

CC.NO.294/2020

 

List of witness for the complainant

 

PW1                      - S.Ramachandran Nair

 

Exhibits for the complainant

 

Ext.P1                   - Details of call history

 

Ext.P2                   - Details of call history

 

Ext.P3                   - Copy of invoice

 

Ext.P4                   - customer’s copy

 

List of witness for the opposite party – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party- NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                      PRESIDENT