SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against opposite parties to give refund Rs.23,500/- as the cost of the TV and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony for the deficiency of service on opposite parties.
Complaint in brief
As per complaint on 23/08/2010 Complainant purchased Videocon 40 LED TV worth Rs.23,500/- with a warranty period 3 years from OP No.1 on 12/08/2019, complainant informed OP No.1 soon after noticing abnormal horizontal and vertical lines appeared on the display panel/ bad picture clarity. A technician inspected the above TV and told that the panel has to be replaced and for this purpose the TV will be sent to service centre at Kannur and on the same day OP received massage that the request of free panel is placed and will get SMS on delivery but no further information from OP No.1 was received even after sending registered letter with Acknowledgement card. On 22nd November 2019 complainant received another message from OP NO.1 that the television booking was cancelled. The suffered hardship due to the deficiency in service from the parts of OPs and hence this complaint.
After filing this complaint the commission has send notice to OPs and OP NO.1 entered appearance and filed their version. Notice to OP No.2 returned after the months with an endorsement “left” and hence deemed to be served and OP No.2 set ex-parte. In the version of OP No.1 they raised the contention of impleading necessary party. Accordingly complainant took steps to impleaded OP No.3 and OP No.3 entered appearance and filed their version accordingly.
Version of OP No.1 is brief
The OP No.1 admits that purchase of TV by complainant but denies averments of complainant specifically. The OP contended that they are only a dealer of OP No.2 and M/s Ashwin electronics, Palllikkunnu, Kannur is the authorized service centre of Videocon and the complaint is load for non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover if the defects arise out of warranty then it will replace only at the cost of consumer. The OP No.1 sold the TV to the complainant with 3 year warranty and OP No.2 is liable to give proper service to complainant. Hence OP No.2 is liable to seen the loss of complainant. OP NO.1 never refund any service required by complainant. The demand of complainant is highly irrational and exorbitant and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Version of OP NO.3 in brief
The OP No.3 denied the allegation except these specifically admitted in version. The OP No.3 admits that the technician of this OP went to complainant’s house to check LED TV upon a friendly request of a company named as “Around 24x7” and not demanded or accepted any remuneration for the unit and hence OP NO.3 has no direct or vicarious liability towards complainant. The OP never took the service on the request of complainant. Therefore, OP NO.3 is not a necessary party to this complaint. As per the complaint the company named as “Around 24X7” is a necessary party. The OP NO.3 has no business contract with complainant and hence not liable to replace the equipment. The replacement should be done by dealer or manufacturer. There is no deficiency in service from the part of OP NO.3 and complainant is making an attempt to grab money by planning into an unnecessary litigation against OP and hence liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to case the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- Compensation and cost?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called for the evidence from complainant as well as OPs. The complainant produced document which is marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the credit bill issued by OP NO.1 dated 23/08/2016. A2 is the warranty card, A3 is the quotation and A4 is the copy of letter. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as Pw1. No document produced from the side of OPs. OP No.1 adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as Dw1.
Issue No.1
On the perusal of documents produced by complainant. OPs not produced any documents except proof affidavit, it is seen that as per Ext.A1, the purchase of TV, on which there is no dispute between the parties to the complaint. As per Ext.A2, it is seen that TV got 1 year warranty and two year extended warranty and as per the seal endorsed by OP No.1 on Ext.A2, the date is 23/08/2016. According to Complainant, the complaint arise on 12/08/2019 and the same was intimated to OP NO.1 and complainant made a mere statement in the complaint that he registered the complaint through ‘QP Around’ company. According to OP No.1 being the dealer, claimed that OP No.3 is the authorized service centre and OP No.3 admitted that their technician visited complainant’s house to check the defect even though OP No.3 denied that they have any direct contract with complainant. During the cross examination complainant deposed that he had direct contract with OP NO.1 only. Even though complainant has direct contract with OP No.1, there is on implied contract arise between complainant and manufacturer. As per Ext.A2, the date of warranty commence from 23/08/2016. On the perusal of Ext.A4 the date is seen as 16/11/2019 ie the warranty period expired 3 months prior to Ext.A4. Even though there is no direct proof of defect arise during the warranty period, there are other evidence like Ext.A4 and admission by OP No.3 that their technician visited complainant’s house to defect the complaint even if complainant registered it with QP around company. So the OP No.1 and OP No.3 has the knowledge of defect which they failed to cure the defect. Hence it is attracts deficiency in service towards complainant’s grievance.
Issue No.2
The complainant is entitled to get compensation only when the defect of the TV is not get rectified by OPs. Hence the commission came into a conclusion that the defect occurred to TV will be rectified by OPs jointly and severally on the payment of cost by complainant
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. That all opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to cure the defect of TV within one month from the date of receipt of order on the payment of cost incurred to cure the defect by complainant. In default the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to complainant towards the dereliction duty towards a consumer within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of complainant act 2019
Exts.
A1- Credit bill
A2- Warranty card
A3-Quotation
A4- Copy of letter
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-OPNo.1
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
