IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   31^st  DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.150/2020

Deepa Devi,

Chamavilayil House,

Villoor P.O., Vettikavala, Kottarakara.                                      :               Complainant      

(By Adv.B.Ajikumar)

V/s

1.   M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.,

                Regd.Office, 14KMS Stone,

               Aurangabad Paithan Road,

              Chitegaon, TQ Paithan,

               Aurangabad Dist.Maharashtra 431105                                :         Opposite Parties

2.    M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.,

               Regional Office, No.39/2730, Gouri Shankaram,

           2^nd Floor,Durbar Hall Road,M.G.Road,Kochi,

              Ernakulam 682016.

3.    M/s Sree Vishnu Associates, Hallelujah Complex,

               Opp.Marthoma Syrian Church, Co-operative Society Jn.,

               Chengamanad, Kottarakara, Kollam 691557.

4.    M/s Matrix Electronics, Videocon Authorized Service Centre,

                K.P.V/774, Vettikkamukalil Building, Lower Eyyamkunnu,

                 Pulamon P.O., Kottarakara, Kollam.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

                The complainant purchased a Videocon 40 inch LED TV manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 16.07.2016 from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount Rs.29,000/- including VAT and  3 years warranty.

                On 10.04.2018 when the TV was switched on, the display was not working.  The matter was informed to the 3^rd opposite party and they had given the number of the Customer Care and asked the complainant to register the complaint. As instructed by the 3^rd opposite party complainant registered a complaint and thereafter a technician from the 4^th opposite party visited the complainant’s house and inspected  the TV.  On inspection it was revealed that the defect is with the LED panel as it comes under warranty period as per the policy of the company and the defective parts shall have to be replaced by the company within 15 days.  The technician also charged an amount of Rs.236/- as the consulting fees and assured that within 15 days the spare parts shall arrive and he shall repair the TV.  After 15 days when the complainant contacted the technician through telephone they informed that the spare has not yet come from the company and there will be a delay of one month.  Again the 4^th opposite party assured that as soon as the spare comes they shall repair the complainant’s TV.  In spite of repeated contacts and demands the approach of 4^th  opposite party was not at all a positive one.  After the lapse of one year the 4^th opposite party gave the number of the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party and told the complainant to contact him.  When the complainant contacted the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party he assured that he will definitely take up the matter and solve the complainant’s problem redressed at the earliest.  After about a couple of months he called on the complainant and informed that the spare parts needed for the repair of the TV is not made available by the 1^st opposite party and he shall solve the problem at the earliest on the availability of the spare parts.  Thereafter another couple of months he called up the complainant and told that the spare part needed is not available  with the company.  The complaint of the TV had occurred within the warranty period, the 1^st opposite party has given approval to the 2^nd opposite party for replacement of the complainant’s TV with a new one and it should be delivered within one month.  Now almost 6 months has elapsed and the

complainant tried to contact the manager of the 2^nd opposite party but he is not ready  to attend the call.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not complied with the assurance given to the complainant which is clear case of deficiency in service which resulted in financial loss as well as mental agony to the complainant.  A legal notice was sent the opposite parties on 21.03.2020 to rectify or replace the LED TV or refund the entire amount.  The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties received the same but did not give any reply.  The legal notice issued  to the 1^st opposite party was returned on 15.06.2020 stating “intimated” and “unclaimed”.  The notice to the 2^nd opposite party returned stating “addressee left”.  The complainant had spent Rs.29,000/- for the purchase of the LED TV for the entertainment of the family members, but the same was not of any use for her child and old age parents during the summer vacations and now also during the lock down period because of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties false promises and deficiency in services, and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant have no other option but to approach the Hon’ble Commission for the settlement of her grievances.   Hence the complaint.

Though notice was issued to opposite parties from Forum/Commission were served to them the 3^rd opposite party alone filed version but failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum/Commission and all the opposite parties were called absent, hence they were set exparte. 

Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.A1 to A5 documents.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 16.07.2016 for Rs.29,000/-.  Ext.A2 is the receipt issued from the 4^th opposite party dated 17.04.2018 for Rs.236/-.  Ext.A3 is the legal notice dated 21.03.2020 issued to the opposite parties.  Ext.A4 series is the acknowledge card.  Ext.A5 is returned notice issued to 1^st opposite party.

                Heard the counsel for the complainant.  Perused the records.

                The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A5 documents would  prima facie establish that on 16.07.2016 the complainant had purchased a Videocon 40 inch LED TV with 3 years warranty manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the shop of 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.29,000/- including VAT.  It is also clear from the available mateirals that when the TV was switched on 10.04.2018 the display was not in a working condition.  This matter was informed to 3^rd opposite party who is the seller of the TV.  Thereafter the 3^rd opposite party had given the customer care number and told the complainant to register a complaint.  According to the instruction of the 3^rd opposite party a complaint was registered before the customer care and technician from the opposite party visited the complainant’s house and inspected the TV.  Thereafter on inspection which is evident that the said defect is within the LED panel and it will come under the purview of warranty period as per the policy conditions and the technician has given assurance to the complainant the same shall be replaced by the company within 15 days and as per Ext.A2 receipt the technician has charged  an amount Rs.236/- as the consulting fees.  Thereafter the 4^th opposite party’s technician after a lapse of 15 days informed through phone that the spare part has not yet come from the company and it will take a delay of one month and assured that as soon as the spare comes they shall rectify and make the TV in the perfect working condition.  However in spite of repeated contacts and personal visit the 4^th opposite party did not give any positive reply.  Thereafter  after  repeated request the 4^th opposite party had given the contact number of 2^nd opposite party and when the complainant had contacted the 2^nd opposite party he assured the complainant that his grievance will be solved at the earliest but the 2^nd opposite party informed that the spare parts are not available in market.   As the defect of the TV could not be repaired within the warranty period, the 1^st opposite party has given approval to the 2^nd opposite party for the replacement of the complainant’s TV with a brand new one

and also directed to delivered the replaced new TV within one month.  The 3^rd opposite party had filed version admitting that the complainant has registered a complaint before the customer care of Videocon Industries Ltd. and that the defect of the LED TV was not cured by the opposite parties.  All the opposite parties simply made assurance to the complainant that the defect of the TV will be rectified and make in a perfect condition within one months it is proved to be a false assurance given to the complainant.  The opposite parties are under obligation to keep the Videocon 40 inch LED TV in a perfect working condition at manufacturing defect was round within the warranty period.  But the opposite parties failed to do so.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complaint of the complainant which resulted in mental agony and loss for which  the complainant is entitled for compensation.  The complainant has spent Rs.29,000/- for purchase of LED TV for the entertainment of the family members, but the same was not of any use for her child and oldage parents during the summer vacation especially during the lock down period due to the non rectifying the defect of the LED TV which is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                In the circumstances the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are liable to replace the defective LED TV or to return its price shown in Ext.A1 invoice  and also liable to pay reasonable compensation and costs to the complainant.

                In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The opposite parties are directed to substitute a brand new LED TV of same value and specifications by receiving the defective TV and if the same is not possible or practicable for any reason opposite parties No. 1 to 3 shall refund its price less 2000 for the use of the TV for 1 year and 9 months by the complainant after taking back the defective TV  from the residence of the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
4. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall comply with directions 1 to 3 within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is at liberty recover the amount covered by relief No.1 to 3 with interest @ 12% per annum except for costs from the date of order till realization from opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the     31^st  day of  October 2022. 

                                STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

   E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                                 S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1                   : The retail invoice dated 16.07.2016 for Rs.29,000/-

Ext.A2                   : The receipt issued from the 4^th opposite party dated 17.04.2018 for Rs.236/-

Ext.A3                   : The legal notice dated 21.03.2020 issued to the opposite parties.

Ext.A4 series         : The acknowledge card

Ext.A5                   : Returned notice issued to 1^st opposite party.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil