DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 24^th day May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member               Date of filing 12/11/2021

CC/195/2021

Krishna Prasad.K.R.

S/o Ramakrishnan

Dhanya Niwas, Kundalassery Post

      Keralassery, Palakkad – 678 641                             -           Complainant

(By Adv. P.Ram Mohan)

V/s

1.   Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd.

L-169,13th Cross

5th Main, Sector 6

HSR Layout

Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 102

2.   M/s Smart Care Service

Shibu kumar, No. 8

Vallapuzha Building

Olavakode, Palakkad

3.   Thomson,

Manufactured & Marketed by

M/s Super Plastronix Pvt. Ltd.

B-29, 30, 31, Sector 81

Phase 2, Noida – 201 305                                         -          Opposite parties

      (All opposite parties ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant purchased a TV (Thomson 9A series 80 cm HD Ready Android TV) manufactured by 3^rd opposite party paying Rs. 9,449/- through the online platform Flipkart.  He took extended warranty by paying Rs. 899/-.  He also paid Rs.1,000/- as installation charges.

After seven months of purchase, the TV started showing black dots on the screen and the matter was reported to the 3^rd opposite party on 03/06/2021.  As directed by them, he sent a mail along with a photograph of the TV to them.  On 08/06/2021 the 3^rd opposite party rejected the claim without even conducting physical verification.  After contacting the opposite parties numerous times, the second opposite party came to the house of the complainant and took the TV along with the warranty card and brought it back on the next day and promised that the TV would be replaced or full amount will be refunded.  The complainant has neither got the replacement nor the refund.

Hence, this complaint, seeking refund of Rs. 11,348/- towards the cost of TV along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- apart from cost.

2.   Notices were sent to the opposite parties.  First and second opposite parties received the notices, but failed to file their version. In response to the notice sent by email, the third opposite party sent a letter, which is not in a proper format /manner for conducting the case.  Hence names of all the opposite parties were called in open court and were set ex-parte.

3.   The complainant in between filed IAs for impleading additional opposite parties and amending the complaint.  Though they were allowed on cost of Rs. 1,000/-, the amendment was not carried out by the complainant within in the stipulated period of 15 days, hence the IAs became infructuous.

4.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A3 as evidence.  Ext. A1 is the invoice of the T V, A2 is the invoice for the installation charges, and A3 is the invoice for the extended warranty for 3 years.

5.   From the evidences adduced it is clear that the TV purchased is eligible for protection under the warranty for 4 years from the date of purchase including the extended warranty availed by the complainant on additional payment.  Hence repairing the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant /replacement /refund is the duty of the opposite parties and the failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

As all the invoices are issued by the first opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party being the manufacturer and in the absence of any statement from their side, we hold them responsible for deficiency in service and hence liable to compensate the complainant.

6.   Resultantly, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

1. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are directed to refund jointly and severally Rs. 11,348/- towards the cost of TV, installation charges and extended warranty along with interest @ 10% per annum from 16/10/2020 till the date of payment.
2. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for deficiency  in service and resultant mental agony and
3. Rs. 10,000/- as cost. 

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day May, 2023.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                        President 

                                                                Sd/-

                                                         Vidya A

                                   Member   

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                    Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                             Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Invoice of the T V.

Ext. A2: Invoice for the installation charges.

Ext. A3: Invoice for the extended warranty for 3 years.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs. 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.