Date of Filing 17.08.2023

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 20.02.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com.,ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                           ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.91/2023

THIS TUESDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

Mr.D.Darmalingam,

S/o.Dhatchanamoorthy,

No.12, Perumal Kovil Street,

Madhiravedu Thiruverkadu,

Ayapakkam, Thiruvallur 600 069.                                                         ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.The Proprietor,

   M/s.Rasi & Company,

   No.97, Mount Poonamallee High Road,

   Karambakkam, Porur 600 116.

2. The Managing Director,

    ONIDA TV MICRC ELECTRONICS LIMITED,

    Onida House G-1,

    MIDC Mahakali Caves Road,

   Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093.                                                  ……. Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                  :  Mr.X.Selvam Sounder, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                         :  Exparte.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                        : M/s.Hari Prasad, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.02.2024 in the presence of Mr.X.Selvam Sounder, counsel for the complainant and M/s.Hari Prasad, counsel for the 2^nd  opposite party and 1^st opposite party was set exparte for non filing of written version and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard to selling defective television along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the television with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that he purchased an ONIDA LED colour television model No.43” inch UHID KY POCK SMART LET TV, Model code: 43UIV-R from the 1^st opposite party on 15.09.2022 for a valuable consideration of Rs.30,000/- vide invoice bill No.2328.  At the time of sale the 1^st opposite party promised that the television set was a brand new one and that the product carries one year warranty. Within one month from the date of purchase the television set did not work properly and hence the complainant immediately reported the same to the 1^st opposite party as well as the Customer Care for rectification or replacement, for which the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party had explained that the product had manufacturing defects in the circuit board itself and recommended for replacement on payment of cost of Rs.5500/-.  It was submitted that both the opposite parties sold a defective television set after collecting of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant but evaded to rectify or replace it as promised by them.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties present complaint was filed to replace the television with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with litigation expenses.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 2^nd opposite party:-

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending that they are the after-sale service provider of the first hand electronic products for different ONIDA products.   The company was established for the best after sale service to all customers of various types of electronic equipment.  It was submitted that the entire electronic equipment pass through stringent quality checks and electronic equipment are marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARIA).  It was submitted that they provide service and repair of the ONIDA products which were purchased directly from its authorized dealers or through online web service providers. Thus the service and repair were available only for the products purchased by the customers first hand. The complainant suppressed the fact that he purchased television of ONIDA LED TV model Code 43UIV brand from authorized dealer.  The 2^nd opposite party did not refuse to repair the product when the product was under warranty. It was submitted that the 2^nd opposite party was ready to replace the main board and the complaint was filed by the complainant with false allegations.  Thus the 2^nd opposite party sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A6 were submitted. On the side of 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed on their side.  Though one Mr.M.Hariprasad, Advocate filed vakalath for the 1^st opposite party he did not chose to file any written version on behalf of 1^st opposite party and hence they were called absent and set exparte on 27.11.2023 for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per stature.

Points for consideration:-

1.                                Whether the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant in not rectifying the defects in the OINDA colour television purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party  and in not replacing the same when found with manufacturing defects?

2.                                If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1&2:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

a)     Invoice Bill for the purchase of television dated 15.09.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;

b)    Receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 15.09.2022 for the payment of Rs.2000/- was marked as Ex.A2;

c)     Warranty card was marked as Ex.A3;

d)    Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 19.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A4;

e)     Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery to the 1^st opposite party was marked as Ex.A5;

f)      Warranty book was marked as Ex.A6;

5. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and 2^nd opposite party.

6. The crux of the arguments made by the complainant is that inspite of complainant spent around Rs.30,000/- in purchasing the new television the same could not be enjoyed by him as within a short span it did not work and was found to have some manufacturing defects.  Hence they prayed for replacement of the new television with extended warranty.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd opposite party submitted that they were ready to replace the television with fresh warranty period and hence they did not commit any deficiency in service.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

8. On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials it is seen vide Ex.A1 the Invoice Bill dated 15.09.2022 the complainant had purchased ONIDA LED 43”4K-UIV from the 1^st opposite party.  The warranty card was also produced as Ex.A3.  It is also established by complainant that within a month of purchase the television did not function and when a complaint was filed by the complainant the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party found that the product had some manufacturing defects with the Mother Board.  However, it is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party demanded Rs.5,500/- for replacing the television set when it was within the warranty period and as he was not willing for the same he had come up before this commission with the complaint.

9.  However, the 2^nd opposite party who was the manufacturer of the product appeared before this Commission and submitted that they were ready to rectify the defects at free of cost or even ready to replace the set with fresh warranty. But as the complainant insisted for compensation no settlement arrived between parties. 

10. At this juncture it assumes significance that the complainant did not prove that the opposite party insisted for payment of Rs.5500/- for replacing the defective product.  In such circumstances we cannot found fault with the act of the opposite parties in not replacing the television set.  However, for the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant in selling a defective product and making him to approach this Commission we award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with an order for replacement of a new television set of the same model along with a fresh warranty for one year from the date of delivery. The complainant was directed to return the defective product to the 2^nd opposite party on getting the new product. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Thus we answer the points accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly directing them

a) To replace the ONIDA LED COLOR TELEVISION model No.43” with a new one with fresh warranty for one year within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees twenty ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

c) if the product is not replaced within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, both the opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of ONIDA LED COLOR TELEVISION model No.43” with 6% interest from the date of purchase till realization.

d) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 20^th February 2024.

       -Sd-                                             -Sd-                                                                 -Sd-                                                                                                   

 MEMBER-II                                   MEMBER-I                                                   PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

      -Sd-                                             -Sd-                                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-II                               MEMBER-I                                                      PRESIDENT