SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the value of the TV Rs.28,800/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
Complaint in brief
The complainant had purchase 43 inch LED Android Television from OP No.1 on 03/04/2021 by paying Rs.28,800/-. The 1st OP is the dealer and 2nd OP is the customer care department. As per the version of dealer the said TV got 2 year replacement warranty. On the very same day of purchase, the TV was fixed in the drawing room of complainant with the aid of a technician. The TV was working satisfactorily. But on the last week of November 21, the picture displayed in the TV became vague due to the lines on the TV screen and this was informed to OP No.1. Gradually, the picture faded completely and TV unit became out of order before the inspection of a technician. On 04/12/2021 complainant registered a formal complaint before OP No.1 and also sent photographs of TV screen to the authorized service centre at Kannur. After the registration of complaint, a technician from Xiaomi Technology visited complainant and thoroughly checked TV after removing it from wall and inform complainant that some specific part inside the TV is seen broken and it happened due to external pressure and therefore it cannot be repaired by dealer/manufacturer. The complainant and his wife stays in the house and nobody in the house exert any external pressure on the TV. After the fixation of TV, it was not taken out form the wall. The complainant tried to convince the technician and dealer but no one was ready to hear. The complainant apprehends time of purchase since no one in the house of complainant to exert pressure to cause damage to TV. Even after the repeated request the dealer or manufacturer agreed was not ready to either repair or replace. Hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, commission issuer notice to both OPs. The OPs received the notice but not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. The commission had to hold that the OPs have no version as such this case come to be proceed against the OPs are set ex-parte.
Even though the OPs have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against eh OPs. Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 5 documents as marked as Ext.A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the original purchase bill dated 03/04/2021, A2 is the copy of lawyer notice, A3 is the postal receipt, A4 is the acknowledgement card and Ext.A5 is the warranty card. The complainant was examined as Pw1. So the OPs remain absent in this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant to prove the case since there is no evidence from the side of OPs. According to Ext.A1 is the purchase bill dated 03/04/2021 issued by OP No.1. The alleged complaint arise on last week of November 2021 during the warranty period and it is left uncured even after the repeated demands from the side of complainant. Being a consumer, complainant has the right to get proper service from OPs. As per Ext.A5, the warranty is for 1 year from the date of purchase and the extended warranty for 2 years. The OPs remain absent even after given four chance to appear and defend the case. The complainant is entitled to get his deficiency uncured which happened during the warranty period. Hence the commission came in to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service from the part of OPs. So the OPs are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defect of TV of free of cost. In default the OPs are directed to pay the value of TV Rs.28,800/- along with compensation for Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to cure the defect of TV purchased by complainant as per Ext.A1 of free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with 5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to complainant. In default the opposite parties are directed to pay the value of TV ie. Rs.28,800/- and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are at liberty to take back the TV from Complainant. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Purchase bill
A2-Lawyer notice
A3 Receipt
A4- Acknowledgement card
A5- Warranty card.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
