SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP’s to pay the value of  TV for an amount of  Rs.10,900/-  to the complainant   along with  compensation  and cost of Rs.1,00,000/-  to the complainant  for   the deficiency in service on their part.

  The brief of the complaint :

   The complainant had purchased Mr.Light Led TV 32” on 20/11/2021 for an amount of Rs.10,900/- from 2^nd OP.  At the time of purchasing the TV  2^nd OP guaranteed 2 years warranty to the TV.  But unfortunately after 6 months of purchase the TV became defective.  In the month of May 2022 the TV completely damaged  and no picture seen in the TV board and not working.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to 2^nd OP.  Then 2^nd OP stated that they informed the matter to 1^st OP and the technician of 1^st OP came to complainant’s house and checked the TV immediately.  But 1^st OP informed that the spare parts is not available now and  after one month they repair the TV.  The TV completely defective on September 2022 itself.  But repeated demand of complainant  OPs 1&2 not  appeared before the complainant’s  house and  checked the working condition of the TV.  Thereafter 1^st OP’s technicians came to  complainant’s house and checked the TV and they stated that  try to repair the defective TV .  On 2/10/2022 they supplied  an old TV to  the complainant and taken the defective TV for repairing.  The OP’s assured that they repaired the TV immediately.  But short span of time the supplied old TV is also defective and not  working properly.  The complainant informed the matter to OP’s.  Then the OP’s assured that they  repaired the TV with free of cost during the warranty period.  But after this time the TV is not properly repaired by the OP’s.  Then the complainant demanded that the OP’s would replace a new TV.  But the OP’s are not ready to replace a new one.  The complainant and his family have seen the  world cup foot ball competition in neighbours house’s TV also. So the act of   OP’s the complainant and his  family caused much mental agony and financial loss.   So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing this complaint, notice  issued to both OP’s . 2^nd OP’s notice served and  1^st OP’s notice refused by 1^st OP. Both  OP’s are not appeared before the commission and not filed their version also. The commission had to hold that the OP’s have no version as such  this case came to be proceed against  OP’s  as set  exparte. 

    Even though the OP’s remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP’s.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.   Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 2 documents marking them  as Exts.A1 & A2.  The complainant  was examined as PW1.   So the opposite parties 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 . On 20/11/2021 the complainant had purchased Mr.Light Led TV 32” for an amount of Rs.10,900/- as shown in the cash bill and marked as Ext.A1.  At the time of purchasing the TV the name of 2^nd OP’s shop as Amaya Home plus.  Now it is named as Arshid appliances.  At the time of purchasing the TV 1^st OP assured   2 year warranty.  On May 2022 the TV became defective and not working properly.  The complainant also produced the warranty card before the commission and marked as Ext.A2.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to OP’s.  But the OP is substitute  an old TV to the complainant and taken the defective TV.  But the OP’s are not ready to repair the TV within the warranty period. The OP’s are not ready to repair the TV or replace a new one also.  Now the old TV is also not working.  The complainant informed the matter to both OP’s .  The complainant and his family constrained to seen the world cup foot ball competition in neighbour’s TV. So the OP’s are directly  bound to redressal  the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the OP’s1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of TV for  Rs.10,900/- along with  Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing  the opposite parties  jointly and severally liable to pay the value of TV Rs.10,900/- to the complainant  along with  Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost  within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default, the amount of Rs.10,900/- carries interest@ 12% per annum  from the date of order till realization , failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the old TV from the complainant .

Exts:

A1- Cash bill

A2- warranty card.

PW1-Chandran@Ramachandran-  complainant.

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/  

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                  

                                                                /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR