By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER (President In-Charge)
Case of complainant is that on 25/06/2018 he bought one Micromax LED T.V for an amount of Rs.12,499/- (Tweleve thousand four hundred ninety nine rupees only) through Flipkart online shoppe . Within few months some lines seen in the TV display and on 11/11/2018 complainant approached to opposite party No.2 for service of the TV , who is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1.
But complainant made so many request to repair the TV, they didnot repair the TV. Hence on 11/06/2019, complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Commission Malappuram. Thereafter on 30/06/2019 the opposite parties approached complainant and they changed the old TV with a brand new one. But opposite party denied the warranty for that 8 months. Hence this complaint.
Complainant claimed Rs.12,499/- (Tweleve thousand four hundred ninety nine rupees only) as the price of the TV, 4,50,000/- (Four lakh fifty thousand rupees only) for mental agony , and 30,000/- (Thirty thousand rupees only) as cost and a total of Rs.4,92,499/- (Four lakh ninety two thousand four hundred ninety nine rupees only).
Notice sent from this Commission through speed post to opposite parties. Notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission and opposite party No.1 filed a version on 16/10/2019. The authorized representative of opposite party No.1 submitted that they already settled the matter. On 26/06/2019, the above mentioned LED TV was repalced by another LED TV on the request of the complainant due to some technical issues . But the complainant has refused to sign the closure form for the reasons best known to him only. They again submitted that the dispute has already been resolved as the LED has been replaced by opposite party No.1. However despite the settlement, the complainant is still demanding monetary compensation which clearly shows the intent behind the present complaint is to extract illegal monetary gain from the opposite party by exploiting the benefits of the Consumer Laws.
In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 and A2 series. Ext. A1 is the tax invoice dated 25/06/2018 and Ext. A2 series are the gmail communications between complainant and opposite parties.
In this complaint representative of opposite party No.1 submitted that they settled the matter by replacing the old LED TV with a brand new one on 26/06/2019 and that is before the 1st posting (08/07/2019) of this CC 208/2019. Complainant in his affidavit clearly stated that he got a new LED TV instead of old one, but he was denied the warranty of that 8 months by opposite parties and opposite party replaced the TV only after he filed this complaint before this Commission. More over complainant stated that the behavior from opposite party No.2, the agent and service centre of opposite party No.1 was very rude when he approached opposite party No.2.
On 29/10/2019 , opposite parties represented before this Commission that they are ready to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand rupees only) and CC 208/2019 posted for reporting settlement. Thereafter on 17/03/2021 complainant appeared before this Commission and submitted that he has not received the money from opposite parties as assured. Hence we posted CC 208/2019 for orders.
Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4000/- (Four thousand rupees only) to complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him by the act of opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- (Thousand rupees only) as cost . The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
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 this order till realization.
