DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2022
Filed on: 08/03/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC.No. 110/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
K. Krishna Kumar, S/o. late V.K. Ramankutty Nair, Changampuzha nagar Houseing Colony, M-70, Changampuzha Nagar, Pin 682033.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Philips India Ltd. (Corporate Office) 8th Floor, DLF 9-B, DLF Cyber City, Sector 25, DLF Phase – 3, Gurgaon 122002
(Rep. by R. Raja Raja Varma, Advocate & Legal Consultant, Tripunithura, Ernakulam)
2. M/s. Selfridges Pvt. Ltd., Parur T.K. BLDG, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Kochi 682033
3. PE Electronics Ltd., Auto Cars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, MH 431005 IN
4. M/s. Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd. C Wing, Mittal Court, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021.
1.
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N. : Member
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint are as stated below:
The complainant purchased a Philip 39” LED Smart TV in August, 2017 with assured 3 years warranty from a Philips Dealer in Kochi M/s. Selfridges Pvt. Ltd. For Rs.37,400/-. On 18/02/2019 the TV broke down with some display problem (after 18 months). As advised by the dealer at the time of purchase the complainant contacted Toll Free No. and subsequently registered the complaint at M/s. Tek Care India (P) Ltd., Mumbai, 4th opposite party through their contact No. 022. The complainant was informed that their service provider at Thamannam, Kochi would contact the complainant within 72 hrs. and do the needful.
On contacting the service provider after 3 days they refused to take up the job as warranty service and told me that I may inform M/s. Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Thereafter the complainant contacted the Mumbai Office several times but they could assure any solution to the problems.
The complainant visited the dealer showroom at Ravipuram, repeated the matter to them and requested to arrange for warranty support as assured by them at the time of purchase. The dealer did not provide the local address details of the manufacturer (Philips).
Hence the complainant approached this Commission to take up the matter and to get the following reliefs.
1. The damaged TV needs to be replaced with a similar and equivalent specification TV (Philips) 39” LED DDB, FHD Smart 39PFL6570 Android Smart TV.
Or
2. Repairs are to be done on the existing TV (under the terms of the warranty) and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is to be given to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation for the lack of support from the dealer/service provider.
Notice
When the case was taken on file the Commission issued notice to the opposite parties on 18/09/2019. The notice ws sent to 2nd opposite party seen served. 2nd opposite party not appeared before the Commission and was called absent and set ex-parte. Later the Commission issued notice to 1st, 3rd and 4th opposite parties through e-mail also. 3rd and 4th opposite parties not appeared before the Commission. 1st opposite party appeared through counsel and filed their version.
The version of 1st opposite party.
The present complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of the complainant to arm-twist the answering opposite party into paying him a huge sum of money. The opposite party states that after every purchase of television from an authorized seller, as per established practice, the television is installed at the delivery address provided to the complainant. In the same way, in this instance, the complainant purchased the television from M/s. Selfridges Pvt. Ltd., and the same was installed at the given address provided to the authorized executive on behalf of P.E. Electronics Ltd. The working of the same was explained to the complainant’s satisfaction. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that, the TV developed some technical problem and made a complaint with Respondent No. 2 on 18/02/2019 and further requested service of the same television set and explained the coverage of the 3 year comprehensive warranty. The complaint was registered only for TV having complaint No. COC1802190002 on 18/02/2019 wherein, it was closed due to non-availability of part TV having serial No. 1109161190147022229. The complainant filed another complaint on 21/02/2019 ie. later 3 days and the same was closed as the complainant did not approach the warranty service department. Further, the complainant was advised to approach the Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.it is relevant to state that the consumer services were offered by Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd. Upon instruction of P.E. Electronics Ltd. That, as P.E. Electronics Ltd. Was undergoing insolvency proceedings, therefore, the said issue could not be resolved.
It is further relevant to mention that Philips India ltd. Through a Trademark License has authorized PE Electronics Ltd. to manufacture and marketing Philips branded TVs in India. This is documented in form of a Trade mark License Agreement (TMLA) between Royal Philips and PE Electronics Ltd. Hence as per the TMLA, PE Electronics Ltd. is responsible to provide consumer care/after service through various organization on contractual basis. It is pertinent to mention that the TMLA spells out a surviving obligation for P.E. Electronics’ Ltd. To continue to provide consumer care. Due to financial difficulties, Videocon India Ltd. Went into NCLT proceedings on June 6, 2018 and consequently, PE Electronics Ltd. Followed into NCLT on August, 31, 2018. That the Management was suspended and IRPs were appointed by Court to run the Companies. IRPs waived all contractual running obligations, in particular the surviving obligation to continue to provide consumer care. Therefore, the service was reduced, and the performance of the service deteriorated. That, the answering opposite party to save its brand name and goodwill has stepped into the same to support its consumers get the desired service. We had offered TV model 43PFT5813S/94 at no cost. The complainant denied only on the ground that the TV purchased by him was of a higher price. The complainant is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Evidence
The complainant has filed two documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 and A2. Complainant has filed proof affidavit. The complainant is cross examined by the opposite party’s counsel and his depositions are recorded as PW1. The opposite parties have no oral or documentary evidence. Heard both sides.
Issues taken for consideration in this case are as follows:
a. Whether there is any deficiency of service or negligence is proved from the side of the opposite parties?
b. Reliefs and costs if any?
For the sake of convenience, we consider issues No. (a) and (b) together.
We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence of both sides. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a TV from the 2nd opposite party on 04/08/2017 with a warranty of 3 years for an amount of Rs.37,400/-. On 18/02/2019, the TV broke down with some display problem. The opposite parties and their men didn’t do anything to rectify the problem of the TV even after repeated demands/requests made by the complainant directly and over the phone. The 1st opposite party contented that they are only the manufacturing company of the TV. They have submitted that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the TV has some incurable defects or any manufacturing defects.
Admittedly the TV became defective within the period of warranty issued by the opposite parties at the time of purchase of the TV. From the available documents and evidence in this case it can be seen that the opposite parties had not taken any steps to rectify the alleged complaint in the TV set of the complainant.
Moreover there was no evidence adduced by the opposite party to show that the opposite parties tried to contact the complainant for attending to the alleged complaint on TV. So we have no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Hence Issue No. (a) and (b) are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:
i. We direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the alleged TV Rs.37,400/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand four hundred only) and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as the cost of proceeding to the complainant.
The above order shall be complied with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the order is not complied within 30 days, the amounts will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.
All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 29th day of November 2022.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Tax Invoice dated 04/08/2017
Exbt. A2: Consumer Guidline
Opposite parties evidence:
Nil
Depositions:
PW1: Krishna Kumar (Complainant)
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No.110/2019
Order Date: 29/11/2022
