IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 28^th day of June, 2024

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 66/2023 (Filed on 04.03.2023)

O R D E R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

      The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The complainant purchased a Television - IMPEX LED TV TITANIUM 43 SMART worth Rs. 25,500/- from the first respondent on 8th May 2019 by availing a purchase loan from Bajaj FinServ Ltd. After three months of installing the TV, there was a display failure, and a complaint was registered on 24/08/2019. After that, many complaints were registered on 13/03/2020, 19/06/2020, and 02/11/2020 for the multiple failures of the said TV. The complainant has requested the first respondent for a replacement with a new TV.

. Opposite parties asked for the TV to be returned and said it could be replaced, according to which the complainant returned it on 15/04/2021. However, the respondent said it would not provide a new TV.

The complainant purchased the said TV to give the same as a gift to Mr. Stogi James at his housewarming. The children of MR. Stogi James had been using the said TV for their online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was discontinued due to the failure of the TV. The complainant suffered a loss of honor for gifting a poor-quality product, and thereby, the complainant sustained much mental agony due to the act of the respondent.

The above said act from the respondent is deficiency in service. On 03/09/2021, the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the respondent about the facts and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and for replacing the damaged product with a new one. The respondent received the notice on 06/09/2021 and has not responded till now. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to replace the TV (IMPEX LED T TITANIUM 43 SMART) with a new one or to pay Rs. 25,500/- with 18% interest, and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation. Upon notice from this commission, opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed separate versions. The second opposite party is impleaded in the party array vide order in IA 364 of 2023.

Version of the first opposite party is as follows:

The complainant, who himself, visited the showroom of the first opposite party and purchased IMPEX LED TV TITANIUM 43 SMART TV according to his wish after thoroughly inspecting the product. The complainant was very confident about its make, performance, warranty, and after-sales service, and he bought the TV according to his own wishes. After the sale of the product, the services, ranging from installation, warranty, and after-sale services, are provided by the manufacturer. This opposite party is only a dealer of the product manufactured by M/s Impex and has never offered nor promised any after-sales services or warranty for the product in question.

It is submitted that once this opposite party receives any grievance from the customers regarding products, this opposite party duly informs the respective manufacturer, and the manufacturer will do the necessary further procedures. It is further submitted that the first opposite party is unaware of the communications, consultations, or transactions that may or may not have transpired between the complainant and the manufacturer or their agents.

The complainant is now alleging a manufacturing defect on the product, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court already holds that the dealer is not liable in case of a manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, and the complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to claim compensation from them and it is a settled law that the deficiency in service has to be proved by the person who alleged it.

The second opposite party filed a version contending as follows:

The complainant purchased an LED television on 08.05.2019. Subsequently, on 13.03.2020, 19.06.2020, and 02.11.2020, the complainant registered a complaint regarding the television, and the second opposite party rectified the same. Later, on 15.04.2021, again, the complainant approached the second opposite party, stating that the television was not working properly. The opposite party informed the complainant that it would be rectified, and the staff of the opposite party's organization went directly to repair it. However, the complainant did not agree to resolve the complaint of the television. The complainant demanded a new TV.  The second opposite party provides a 36 month warranty on the television. Although the second opposite party said that the complaint with the TV could be resolved, the complainant was not amenable to the same.

The second opposite party is only liable to repair the defect of the television which is said to be defective. The second opposite party had assured the complainant that the television's fault would be rectified, so the staff of the second opposite party went to the present location of the television on 06.11.2020. However, the complainant behaved rudely to the staff of the second opposite party establishment and did not allow the staff to fix the problem with the television. There has been no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A5. There is no oral or documentary evidence on the part of the opposite parties.

We would like to consider the following points on the evaluation of the complaint version and evidence on record. 

1. Did the complainant succeed in proving any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

Point Nos. 1 & 2

There is no dispute that the complainant purchased an Impex LED TV Titanium 43 Smart TV, manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party, for an amount of ₹ 25,500. It is proved by exhibit A1 that the complainant had paid ₹ 25,500 to the first opposite party on 18.05.2019 as the price of the television. According to the complainant, three months after the date of installation, the TV became defective, and a complaint was registered on 24.08.2019. Thereafter, many complaints were registered on 13.03.2020, 19.06.2020, and 02.11.2020 for the multiple failures of the said TV. But the opposite parties failed to replace the TV or to cure the defect of the TV. It was submitted by the second opposite party that on 13.03.2020, 19.06.2020, and 02.11.2020, the complainant registered the complaint regarding the television, and the second opposite party rectified the same.  When the second opposite party informed us that they would rectify the defects in the complaint registered on 15.04.2021, the complainant was not amenable to the same and insisted on replacing the television. It is proved by Exhibit A2 series which are service call registration records that the complainant had registered Complaints on 24.06.2019, 13.03.2019, 19.06.2020 and 02.11.2020. Exhibit A2 series proves that all these complaints are regarding the display of the television.

It is submitted by the second opposite party that the complainant had registered complaints with the second opposite party on 13.03.2020, 19.06.2020, and 02.11.2020, and the same were duly attended and rectified the defects of the television. In the version, the second opposite party stated that the complainant had registered another complaint on 15.04.2021, but when the second opposite party approached the complainant on 06.11.2020 to rectify the defect of the television, the complaint did not permit the technicians of the second opposite party to rectify the defects. He demanded a replacement television. However, the second opposite party did not disclose what was the defect of the television. The factual aspect of the case was that the said TV was in working condition only for a few months from the date of purchase.  When all of a sudden, a display complaint developed on the TV, duty was cast upon the complainant to prove that the said defect is only an inherent defect by obtaining an expert opinion.  In the instant case, the complainant had miserably failed to do so.  In our considered opinion, had the TV been sold to the complainant in a damaged condition, the same would not have worked even for a period of 3  months.  Therefore, the complainant has not established with tangible evidence that the damage was caused due to a manufacturing defect. 

Admittedly, the television has a warranty of 36 months. So we can see that all these complaints occurred during the warranty period of the television which was purchased on 08.05.2019. If the manufacturer provides a warranty for the products, the manufacturer is under the bounden duty to rectify the defects that occur during the warranty coverage period. Non rectification of the defect of the television, which has warranty coverage, is a deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the salutary principles of the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the opinion that a direction to the second opposite party to rectify the defects of the TV in a good working condition and to give a compensation of     ₹ 10,000 to the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

As the result, we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order:-

We hereby direct the second opposite party to rectify the defect of the television of the complainant in good working condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing in which the second opposite party shall refund ₹ 12,500/- that is 50% of the price of the television to the complainant. We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay ₹ 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry as interest @9% from the date of this order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of June, 2024

    Sri. Manulal V.S, President   Sd/-

    Sri.K.M.Anto, Member          Sd/-                     

APPENDIX :

Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :

A1     -  Copy of the Taxable Invoice from Bismi Connect dated 18.05.2019.

A2     -  Copy of Service call registration from Bismi Connect dated 23.08.2019.

A2 (a)-  Copy of Service call registration from Bismi Connect dated 13.03.2020.

A2 (b)- Copy of Service call registration from Bismi Connect dated 17.06.2020.

A2 (c)- Copy of Service call registration from Bismi Connect.

 A3     -  Copy of the legal notice dated 03.09.2021.

A4      -  Postal Receipt dated 03.09.2021

A5      - Acknowledgment Card dated 06.09.2021.

Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil    

By Order,

                                                                                                     Assistant Registrar