DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024.

PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.

          : SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                   

                    : SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER. 

                                                                                                                  Date of filing: 09.06.2023.    

CC/153/2023

1             P.Unnikrishnan,                                                                               - Complainant

Sanjith Nivas (Palaveetil),

Kottappuram,

Sreekrishnapuram (via),

Palakkad-679 513.

(Party-In-Person)                                                         

                                                                                Vs

 1.           MIRC Electronics Ltd.,                                                             -Opposite Parties

MIDC Andheri,

Mumbai-40093.

2.            ODIGI Service Ltd.,

                MIDC Andheri,

                Mumbai-40093.

3.            Shobha Electronics,

                Door No.23/298,

                Stadium Bypass Road,

                Palakkad-678 013.

                (All OPs are Ex-parte)

                                              ORDER

BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

1.       Pleadings of the complainant.   

The complainant purchased a ONIDA SMART TV, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for Rs.24,499/- from Amazon Online market on 11.02.2022.  The product is having one year warranty provided by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had obtained extended warranty cover of two years from 11.02.2023 to 09.02.2025 provided by the 3^rd opposite party by paying Rs.1,419/-.  After four months of purchase, the TV developed technical issues, rendering it unusable.  When the matter was taken up with the customer care of the 1^st opposite party, they provided replacement with same model TV on 12.08.2022 without giving any warranty card for the new TV.  The replaced TV also developed the same complaint on 17.03.2023.  Inspite of repeated contacts with the 3^rd opposite party, the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party, the defective TV is not yet replaced as per the terms of warranty.  Hence, this complaint is filed seeking refund of the cost of TV along with compensation.

2.      Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party, though received the notice, failed to file their version within the statutory period.  Hence, the version was rejected and they were set ex-parte.  The 2^nd opposite party did not file version and hence, were set ex-parte. Notice to the 3^rd opposite party was returned with endorsement “unclaimed”.  Hence, their name was called recalled in open court and set ex-parte. 

3.      The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 and A2 as evidence.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice of the TV purchased and the extended warranty and Ext.A2 is the extended warranty document issued by the 2^nd opposite party showing that the TV is having extended warranty coverage from 11.02.2023 to 09.02.2025.

4.      In the absence of any counter pleadings from the side of the opposite parties, the complainant has to prove a prima facie case in the matter.

5.      The product developed complaints within four months of purchase and the 1^st opposite party provided replacement as per the warranty terms as the TV was under warranty for one year from the date of purchase.

6.      The replaced TV also developed similar complaint on 07.03.2023 ie. beyond the warranty period but within the extended warranty (Ext.A2).  Hence, the responsibility for further replacement lies with the 2^nd opposite party which has not been done.  This amounts to deficiency in service on unfair trade practice and it has to be adequately compensated.  But the complainant is not interested in replacement of TV as he lost faith in the product due to frequent complaints.

7.      Resultantly, the following reliefs are ordered;

          1. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.24,299/- along with interest 10% p.a. from 11.02.2022 till the date of payment.

          2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

          3. The 2^nd opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

Pronounced in open court on this the 12^th day of March, 2024.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                     VINAY MENON .V,

                      PRESIDENT.

                                    Sd/-

                                                                     KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,

                                                                                  MEMBER.

                                                        APPENDIX

            Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext.A1: The tax invoice of the TV purchased and the extended warranty.

Ext.A2: The extended warranty document issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

Cost : 10,000/-.

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure)Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.