DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 21.12.2023.
CC/345/2023
Manoj.T, S/o.Sivaraman, - Complainant
Thottingal, Eyyambalam, Pottassery PO,
Pottassery-1, Palakkad-678 598.
(Party-In-Person)
Vs
1. M/s.A.M.Enterprises, 2/506, 507, -Opposite Parties
Sabco Tower, Kodathipadi, Mannarkkad,
Palakkad.
(Ex-parte)
2. MI Service Centre, 21/356,
CBE Road, Near P&P Paint Shop,
Kalmandapam Junction, Palakkad.
(Ex-parte)
3. M/s.Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd,
Ground Floor, AKR Infinity,
Kudlu Gate, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,
Hosapalaya, Muneeshwara Nagar, Bangalore-560 068,
Karnataka.
(By Adv.K.S.Arundas)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant. The complainant purchased a ‘Redmi Smart TV 4K X 43’ manufactured by the 3rd opposite party on 01.05.2022 from the 1st opposite party paying Rs.29,000/-. The TV was having warranty for one year. The complainant took extra warranty for another one year on payment of Rs.2,500/- to the 2nd opposite party. The TV got damaged on 11.11.023 while working. As the matter was taken up with the 2nd opposite party, their service engineers attended to the complainant and found that there is defect in the panel. As the defect occurred during the warranty period opposite parties have the responsibility to cure defect under the terms of warranty. Inspite of repeated contacts with the 2nd opposite party and customer care of the 3rd opposite party; the defect is yet to be cured.
Hence, this complaint is filed seeking replacement of the TV, or refund of the original cost of Rs.29,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service apart from cost of litigation.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties after admitting the complaint. Notice to the 1st opposite party was returned with endorsement “No such Addressee”. Hence, notice was sent by way of e-mail which was received by them on 27.01.2024. Since they did not file version within statutory period or appear, their name was called in open court and set ex-parte. The 2nd opposite party failed to file version within the statutory period inspite of receiving the notice, hence they were also set ex-parte since they were not present. The 3rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. Based on the complainant’s pleadings and the version of the 3rd opposite party, the following issues were framed for consideration;
1. Whether the opposite parties failed in addressing the defect of the TV as per the warranty terms and conditions?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
4. Any other reliefs.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A4 as documentary evidence. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party for the product, Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party for additional warranty, Ext.A3 is service call report issued by the 2nd opposite party and Ext.A4 is the warranty card issued by the 3rd opposite party for the product.
5. The 3rd opposite party failed to file proof affidavit and mark any documents as evidence. Hence, their name was called in open court and set ex-parte.
6. As per Ext.A1, the TV was purchased on 01.05.2022 and original warranty is available for one year from the date of purchase. As per Ext.A2, the 2nd opposite party has collected Rs.2,500/- for extended warranty. Hence, the defect detected by the service engineer of the 2nd opposite party (panel defect) as per Ext.A3 has occurred during the period of warranty and hence, to be cured by the manufacturer under warranty terms and conditions.
7. Though the opposite parties are set ex-parte, the 3rd opposite party in their version raised two contentions for not attending to the defect under warranty. One is that the damage caused is due to physical damage, which is excluded from warranty. Another argument is that manufacturing defect if any, is to be proved by way of an Expert Commissioner Report and if at all any part is having manufacturing defect, the complainant can seek replacement of that part and not the entire product under warranty.
8. Though the above contentions were made in the version of the 3rd opposite party, they did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence. Hence, the merits of the case is to be decided on the basis of complainant’s proof affidavit and documents marked from his side.
9. Issue No.1
Ext.A3 issued by the Service Engineer of the 3rd opposite party is the documentary evidence showing that the defect in the TV was detected as “panel defect” on 11.11.2023. This has happened well within the extended warranty period as seen from Ext.A3 and A4. Hence, the 3rd opposite party being the manufacturer has the liability to attend to the defect under warranty and hence issue 1 goes in favour of the complainant. Further the 3rd opposite party has not adduced any evidence in support of their contentions raised by them in the version. The service engineer’s report also does not support their contentions.
10. Issue Nos.2, 3 and 4
Not attending to the defects in warranty period is a clear care of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation.
11. Resultantly, the following order is passed.
1) The 3rd opposite party is directed to replace the TV with a same brand/model one with a warranty of 1 year or refund. Rs.29,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of the TV along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 01.05.2022, till the date of payment.
2) The 3rd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
3) The 3rd opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
4) Since attending to the defects under warranty is primarily the responsibility of the manufacturer, the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party are absolved of any liability.
The above amounts are to be paid by the 3rd opposite party within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party No.3 are liable to pay Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment
Pronounced in open court on this the 26th day of November, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The copy of tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party for the product.
Ext.A2: The copy of the service call report of MI Service Centre dated 02.05.2022
Ext.A3: The copy of the service call report of MI Service Centre dated 04.05.2022.
Ext.A4: Copy of warranty card issued by the 3rd opposite party for the product.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: NIL
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : 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.
