IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 17thDAY OF APRIL 2021
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.147/2018
- Karthikeyan, aged 54 years,
S/o KunjuPanicker, Karthika,
KidangayamNaduvilPatharam P.O.,
Kunnathoor : Complainants
(By Adv.Rajmohan M.R.)
Addl.Com2. Raji, age 48, W/o Karthikeyan,
Karthika, KidangayamNaduvilPatharam P.O.,
Kunnathoor, Kollam.
(By Adv.Rajmohan M.R.)
Addl.Com3. Neethu, age 30,
S/o Karthikeyan,
Karthika, KidangayamNaduvilPatharam P.O.,
Kunnathoor, Kollam.
(By Adv.Rajmohan M.R.)
Addl.Com4. Nidhin, age 27,
S/o Karthikeyan,
Karthika, KidangayamNaduvilPatharam P.O.,
Kunnathoor, Kollam.
(By Adv.Rajmohan M.R.)
V/S
- The Managing Director,
M/s KCM Appliances Pvt.Ltd., 10/595-F,
Malikampeedika, Alangad P.O.,
Ernakulam Dist. 683 511.
Proprietor, Ambili Enterprises,
Devaswom Buildings, Cakkuvally,
Sooranadu, KunnathoorTaluk
- Impextechzone,SS Buildings, Opp.Petrol Pump,
Nillimukku, Mulankadakam, Kollam Dist. : Opposite parties
ORDER
Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.SC, LLB, Member
This is acase based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
On 17.01.2014 the complainant has purchased a Impex GLORIA 39 model LED colour TV worth Rs.19700/-(inclusive of tax) from 2nd opposite party as per invoice No.B.990. Here 2nd opposite party is the authorised dealer of 1st opposite party, who is the manufacturer of the Television and 3rd opposite party is the authorised service centre of 1st and 2nd opposite parties. At the time of purchase the opposite party has offered 12 months warranty on the appliances against defective material or workmanship and also offered an additional warranty of two years to the models viz Gloria-32, Fiesta 32, Gloria 39 and Gloria 50. In addition to the warranty the1stopposite party has also made to believe the complainant that the Television is having high performance, quality, longlife, required standard and also offered needful service free of charge during warranty period. But one year after buying the TV, it was noticed that the picture quality of the television gradually declining and its display was completely lost on 7th October 2017. Since then the TV was not been able to run. A complaint has been booked before 2nd opposite party in this regard on the very next day itself and 3rd opposite party send its mechanic, who after inspecting the television informed the complainant that an amount of Rs.12,000/- would be needed for curing the defect. But the complainant was not ready to pay any charge because the defect was occurred during the warranty period. Even though the mechanic was shown the warranty card, he returned without repairing the same. Since then, opposite parties have repeatedlycalled for the TV to be repaired but they have reluctant to do so. According to the complainant the opposite parties are obliged to provide a new TV becausethemalfunctioningwas solely due to manufacturing defect hence it could not be repaired. As per the warranty conditions here the opposite parties are either to repair the defects fully or to replace the same with a new TV to the satisfaction of the complainant but the opposite parties refrain from discharging their contractual obligation. The above actions of the opposite parties are breach of service to which they are required to pay compensation. Due to the deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties the complainant couldn’t avail the purpose for which the TV was purchased. Thus the complainant has suffered economic loss, mental agony and hardship. Prior to this complaint the complainant had made a petition regarding the same before Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kunnathur as PLP No.74/2018, but the petition was closed due to the unwillingness of opposite parties to resolve the issue amicably. The above act of the opposite parties amounts to inexcusable deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the circumstances the opposite parties are directed to replace the defective TV with a new one and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and costs. Hence the complaint.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation from opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
The complainant was reported to be dead on 08.08.2018 and his legal heirs wife, son and daughter were added asadditional complainants in this petition.Nidhin, S/o deceased complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P3 documents.Thought notice was served on opposite parties 1 to 3 they have neither appeared before the forum nor filed any version.Hence they were set exparte.
Though sufficient time has been granted the learned counsel for the complainant has not filed any notes of argument nor advanced oral argument.
Point No. 1 and 2
Ext.P1 is the retail invoice Bill No.B.990 dated 07.09.2016 for Rs.22,100/- issued in favour of Karthikeyan by Ambili Enterprises Devaswom Building Chakkuvally, Sooranad. Ext.P2 is the warranty card dated 07.09.2016 for a period of 12 months issued by Impex LED TV. Ext.P3 is the extended warranty card issued by KCM Appliances Pvt.Ltd for Impex LED TV model GLORIA 39.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Exts.P1 to P3 documents would establish the case of the complainant. Here the diminishing of picture quality of the TV was occurred during the warranty period and instead of repairing the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replacing the same with a new one, the opposite parties demanded Rs.12,000/- for curing the defect, which is purely against warranty conditions. In order to escape from their contractual obligations the opposite parties have demanded Rs.12,000/- as repairing charge and thereby committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which resulted in mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant.
In view of the above materials available on records we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as they have failed to repair the TV fully or to replace the TV with a new one. Therefore the complainants are entitled to get replaced the TV with a new one and to get a reasonable compensation and costs from opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.
In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to replace the defective TV with a brand new one or to refund Rs.19,700/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and 3,000/- as costs of the proceedings within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the above amount with interest except for costs at the rate of 9 % per annumfrom the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of April 2021.
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : retail invoice bill No.B.990 dated 07.09.2016
Ext.P2 :warranty card dated 07.09.2016
Ext.P3 : extended warranty card issued by KCM Appliances Pvt.Ltd.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
