DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
Filed on: 01/01/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 4/2022
Between
COMPLAINANT
Satheeshkumar T.T., S/o Thankappan Pillai, Thekke Arekkulath, Pattara Road, Aroor P.O, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District, PIN-688534.
(Rep. by Adv. Dr. V.N. Sankarjee, V.N. Madhusudanan, R. Udaya Jyothi, Carmel Buildings, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 18)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Micromax Informatics Ltd., 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase -V, Gurugram, Haryana-1220162.
- Pittappallil Agencies, Edappally Toll Junction, Edappally, Ernakulam- 682 024
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. An employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board filed a complaint against a manufacturer of electronics and its authorized dealer over issues with an LED TV. The complainant, residing with his family, bought the TV for Rs. 31,000 with a 12-month warranty in July 2020. After some time, the TV malfunctioned due to a manufacturing defect. Despite reporting this to the dealer and a service technician diagnosing the issue as a defective panel needing replacement, the problem was not resolved due to the panel being out of stock and subsequent service failures, exacerbated by lockdowns and COVID-19.
Despite multiple attempts to get the TV repaired or replaced, including after the warranty expired, the dealer refused to act, citing expired warranty and other excuses, leading to no resolution. This situation affected the complainant's children's online education and caused the family significant distress. The complainant accuses the manufacturer and dealer of gross negligence, deficiency in service, and fraudulent practices, claiming a loss of Rs. 31,000. A legal notice demanding replacement or compensation of Rs. 41,000 was ignored.
The complaint, seeking justice under the Consumer Protection Act, asks the commission for the replacement of the TV or parts, compensation of Rs. 42,000 for costs, damages for deficiency in service, and legal charges, plus the cost of proceedings, highlighting a clear case of consumer rights violation.
2) Notice
The notices issued to the opposite parties were dispatched by the commission. Despite acknowledging receipt of these notices, the opposite parties failed to submit their versions. Consequently, they have been set as ex-parte in this proceeding.
3) Evidence
The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-5.
- Exhibit A-1: GST Invoice (bill of Purchase) dated 22.07.2020.
- Exhibit A-2: LED TV User Manual Including Warranty Card.
- Exhibit A-3: Office Copy of the Lawyer Notice dated 17.09.2021.
- Exhibit A-4: Postal receipts (2 in number) dated 18.09.2021.
- Exhibit A-5: Postal Acknowledgement Cards.
- Copy of the Track consignment report also produced by the complainant.
Top of Form
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. A copy of the GST Invoice (bill of Purchase) dated 22.07.2020. (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
Sri. V.N. Madhusudanan, the learned counsel representing the complainant, argued that the complainant, an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board residing with his family, filed this complaint against the manufacturer of electronics and their authorized dealer over a malfunctioning LED TV. The complainant bought the TV for Rs. 31,000 on July 22, 2020, which came with a one-year warranty. Shortly after purchase, the TV's display failed, attributed to its poor quality. Despite reporting the issue and receiving a visit from a service technician who identified a manufacturing defect in the panel, no repair or replacement was provided. Efforts to resolve the situation were further complicated by a lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the dealer's service contractor refusing service over unpaid dues. Despite repeated attempts for redress, the warranty expired, and the complainant was informed that no repairs would be undertaken.
This inaction led to significant inconvenience, affecting the online education of the complainant's children and causing distress. The counsel highlighted the respondents' negligence and failure to disclose the product's defects deliberately, equating it to an attempt to deceitfully secure payment for a defective TV. This situation resulted in a loss of Rs. 31,000 for the complainant, who then sought legal redress, including the replacement of the defective parts or the TV itself, alongside compensation for the financial and emotional toll endured.
Documents such as the GST invoice, the warranty card, the lawyer's notice, postal receipts, and acknowledgement cards were submitted as evidence, marked as Exhibits A1 to A5. The argument emphasized the concept of 'Product Liability' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, highlighting the shift towards holding manufacturers and sellers accountable for harm caused by defective products. The counsel argued that the unaddressed defects and the respondents' disregard for their duty to provide a functional product constitute a clear case of negligence and deficiency in service, urging the court to provide the requested relief to mitigate the complainant's losses and suffering.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parity conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The concept of 'Product Liability' is formally introduced in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, marking a significant evolution from the previous legislation of 1986. This new definition encompasses the responsibility of manufacturers, sellers, or service providers to compensate consumers for any harm resulting from defects in goods or deficiencies in services related to a product. The Act, which received Presidential assent and was published on August 9, 2019, came into full effect on July 20, 2020. It aims to provide enhanced consumer protection, moving from a 'buyer beware' to a 'seller beware' approach, signifying a shift towards holding sellers and manufacturers more accountable.
Chapter VI of the Act focuses on product liability, detailing circumstances under which consumers can claim compensation for harm caused by defective products. 'Harm' is broadly defined to include not just physical injury or property damage (excluding the product itself), but also mental and emotional distress. Importantly, it excludes issues related to warranty breaches or indirect economic losses. The definition of a 'defect' is expanded to cover any discrepancy in the expected quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard that is legally or contractually required, or as claimed by the seller.
This framework requires consumers seeking redress for product liability to prove that the harm incurred was directly due to the product's defectiveness, establishing a clearer path for addressing grievances and obtaining compensation for damages.
A television was purchased and repaired in "Solidaire India Ltd. & Another v/s K. Indira, Appeal No. 358 of 1992" was decided on December 28, 1993, by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The television quit working just after a week, necessitating a total of 11 repairs.
In Tata Motors v. Rajesh Tyagi & Associates, decided on December 3, 2013, by the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the dispute involved Tata Motors, the complainant was given a defective car and was required to fix it once every month. The NCDR issued a ruling directing the manufacturer to make the required repairs as soon as possible and return the vehicle to the complainant within three months.
We have carefully heard the submission made at length by the learned Counsel representing the complainant and have also considered the entire evidence on record.
The complaint pertains to issues arising from a malfunctioning LED TV, amounting to allegations of deficiency in service, negligence, and unfair trade practice.
Under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly referencing the provisions related to 'Product Liability' and the rights of consumers, this Commission embarked on a detailed examination of the facts and evidence presented.
A. Deficiency in Service and Negligence: The Opposite Parties' failure to repair or replace the malfunctioning LED TV, despite being under warranty and despite repeated requests, constitutes a clear deficiency in service and negligence. This is further exacerbated by their failure to respond to a legal notice and to participate in these proceedings, indicating an admission of the claims against them.
The concept of product liability, as introduced in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, places the onus on manufacturers and sellers to ensure their products are free from defects and safe for use.
Relevant Case Laws:
- Solidaire India Ltd. & Another v/s K. Indira: This case underlines the principle that consumers must not suffer due to defective goods and are entitled to proper redress in the form of repair, replacement, or compensation.
- Tata Motors v. Rajesh Tyagi & Associates: Highlights the responsibility of manufacturers to rectify defects in goods sold, reinforcing the precedence of consumer rights over commercial interests.
- Liability of the Opposite Parties:
Given the evidence presented, including the GST invoice, warranty card, and correspondence related to attempts to seek redress, it is evident that the Opposite Parties have failed in their duty to provide a product of satisfactory quality and to remedy known defects in a timely and effective manner. Their actions, or lack thereof, have directly resulted in inconvenience and distress to the complainant and his family, significantly impacting their daily lives.
The conduct of the Opposite Parties demonstrates not merely a failure to provide the requisite standard of service and a neglect of duty but also a blatant contravention of the accountability and fairness principles embodied within the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Their lack of response and apathy towards the grievances expressed by the complainant vividly illustrate a manifest indifference to the rights and well-being of consumers.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall replace the defective LED TV with a new one of the same model or a comparable model if the original model is unavailable.
- The Opposite Parties shall pay compensation of ₹40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience caused by their deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties shall have the liberty to take back the defective LED TV in question from the complainant within 30 days of complying with the above direction.
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Should there be a failure to comply within the stipulated period, the amounts detailed in Points I and II will accrue interest at an annual rate of 9% starting from the expiration of the 45-day period, from the date of filing of the case (01.01.2022) till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 27th day of March 2024
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: GST Invoice (bill of Purchase) dated 22.07.2020.
Exhibit A-2: LED TV User Manual Including Warranty Card.
Exhibit A-3: Office Copy of the Lawyer Notice dated 17.09.2021.
Exhibit A-4: Postal receipts (2 in number) dated 18.09.2021.
Exhibit A-5: Postal Acknowledgement Cards.
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 4/2022
Order date: 27/03/2024
Order Date: 16/02/2024
