| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Friday the 26th day of May 2023 CC No. 385/2017 Complainant Rajeev.K.R S/o.K.S.Rudran, 2/2438-B, Nairkulangarathazham, Parammel Road, Malaparamba, Kozhikode – 673 009. (By Adv.Sri.P.K.Ashfaq) Opposite Parties - M/s.Getezee Online Ventures Pvt.Ltd.
1B, Sun Pride Apartments, 2nd street, Ganapathy Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. - M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd.
90B, sector – 18, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 015. 3. M/s. Prapanch Vision, Micromax Service Muthappan Complex, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode – 673 016. ( By.Adv.Sri. P.T.S. Unni) ORDER By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant made an online purchase of a Micromax 50C1200FHD 123cm (49”) full HD LED Television from Opposite Party No.1, which was manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2, by paying Rs.38,042.38 on 28/02/2015. However, after receiving the Television, the Service Engineer from the Opposite Party No.3, the Authorized Service Personnel of the Opposite Party No.2, wall mounted the television on 09/03/2015 and when the complainant switched on the television, a wave like fold appeared on the screen at the bottom centre of the television and the matter was, as recommended by the service Engineer of the Opposite Party No.3, immediately reported to the Opposite Party No.1 by e-mail communication and the complainant was assured by the Opposite Party No.1 that the matter would be sorted out with the Opposite Party No.3. However, there was no immediate action from the side of any of the Opposite Parties to replace the Television with a new one. At last, after several communications, on 08/04/2015 the complainant was assured by the Executive of the Opposite Party No.2 that the television would be replaced with a new one and the complainant got his television replaced after several months. - However, the television again got defective, with malfunctioning in the display having problem found in the backlight, even before the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party No.3 and the Service Personnel inspected the television and confirmed that the problem was with the backlight. Accordingly, it was taken to the Service Centre by the Opposite Party No.3. The matter was also communicated to the Customer Care Executive of the Opposite Party No.2 by e-mail. However, the complainant did not receive the television back nor did he get any satisfactory reply from the Opposite Party No.3 about the actual defects of the television even after the lapse of several weeks. The matter was several times communicated to the Customer relations Department of the Opposite Party No.2 also. On 27/07/2017 the complainant was informed by the Opposite Party No.3 that due to GST problems the spare parts could not be obtained and hence the delay in servicing the television. Although the complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party NO.2, without redressing grievances of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2, on 11/07/2017, informed the complainant that his complaint regarding the product was completed. In the 4th week of August, 2017, to the astonishment of the complainant, he was informed by the Opposite Party No.3 that the problem was with the display panel and the complainant had to pay Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand) for repairing the television.
- The complainant, therefore, issued a lawyer notice to the Opposite Parties. The notice to 1st opposite party was returned unserved. Although the Opposite Parties No.2 and No.3 received the lawyer notices, they did not send any reply. However, in the last week of September, 2017, the Opposite Party No.3 informed the complainant that the Television had been repaired and the complainant need to pay Rs.7,200/- towards repair and service charges. On 30/09/2017, the Opposite Party No.2 also sent an email communication to the complainant that their service partner, Opposite Party No.3, informed them that LED panel of the television was damaged and the service had been done on chargeable basis. The complainant informed the Opposite Party No.3 that he was ready to pay Rs.7,200/- towards repair and service charges provided he should be provided with three years warranty for the Television since the Television sold to him was having a manufacturing defect. However, the Opposite Party No.3 was not amenable to the just demand of the complainant.
- The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.38,042/- for purchasing the said television set and it was not purchased with the intention of using it for just two years. The television set earlier delivered to the complainant itself was defective and only due to that a new one was substituted, that too after several months. However, within no time the substituted television set also got defective which shows that the television set supplied to the complainant is of inferior quality and that it is having manufacturing defect. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 had not provided a proper warranty card to the complainant. The above said actions on the part of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- The complainant has been very much aggrieved by the issue and has also been offended by the way the Opposite Parties responded to his service request, which has resulted in causing intense mental agony, inconvenience, hardships and physical strain to the complainant, besides incurring financial loss to him. The Opposite Parties have, so far, not returned the television to the complainant. The complainant, by the negligent acts and by the deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties, has already sustained huge losses, besides putting his children in a state of utter disappointment as they could not see television programs three months and even during their Onam vacation. The complainant has undergone immense mental agony and suffered much physical strain also with regard to the repair of the above said television. All these have been caused only due to the negligent attitude and deficiency of service by the opposite parties. The Opposite Party No.1 being the seller of the defective television, the Opposite Party NO.2 being the manufacturer of the television and the Opposite Party NO.3 being the authorized service partner for the Opposite Party NO.2, all the three opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the monetary loss and suffering sustained by the complainant. Hence the complaint for replacement of the TV with a new one or refund of the purchase price along with compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
- The first and second opposite parties were set ex parte. The 3rd opposite party filed written version wherein all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint are denied. According to the 3rd opposite party, it was an online purchase and there is every chance of complaints to the TV which was sent by courier. Pursuant to the complaint reported by the complainant, the technicians of the 3rd opposite party inspected the TV in his house and was convinced about the damage. Accordingly, Micromax company was intimated and the TV was replaced with a new one. Minor delay was there since the formalities with the insurance company had to be completed. Thereafter the TV showed complaint in the year 2017, after the warranty period. On inspection, the complaint was found to be that of the panel. The panel would cost Rs.32,000/- approximately. Considering the difficulties of the complainant, they repaired the panel. The repair to the panel is very difficult and time consuming. The repair was carried out within three weeks. When it was intimated to the complainant, he stated that he had approached this Forum and is awaiting orders. Approximately, a sum of Rs. 8,500/- was spent by them for the repairs. So, the complainant may be directed to take back the TV paying the repair charges.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Whether the prayer for replacement of the TV or refund of the price is allowable?
- Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so, what is the quantum?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the 3rd opposite party.
- Heard. The complainant filed brief argument note.
- Points 1 to 3: These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The prayer is for the replacement of the defective TV with a new one or refund of the purchase price along with compensation.
- The case of the complainant is that the TV purchased by him became defective soon after the purchase and it was replaced with a new one after a long delay. His grievance is that the replaced one also showed complaints and there was delay in repairs and the 3rd opposite party demanded repair charges.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext.A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 28/02/2015, Ext.A2 is the e-mail communication dated 11/07/2017, Ext.A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 31/08/2017, Ext.A4 is the postal acknowledgement card and Ext.A5 is the e-mail communication.
- The 3rd opposite party service provider alone contested the matter. The 1st opposite party seller and 2nd opposite party manufacturer remained ex-parte and did not participate in the proceedings. The 3rd opposite party, in their written version, has denied the allegations made against them and according to them, they have taken all the earnest efforts to redress the grievance of the complainant. However, they have admitted that there was some delay in the service/repairs.
- The 3rd opposite party was examined as RW1. Rw1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the written version. Ext.B1 is the job sheet dated 12/08/2017.
- That the complainant purchased Micromax 50C1200FHD 123cm (49”) full HD LED Television from the 1st opposite party on 22/02/2015 paying Rs.38,042.38/- is admitted. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer and the 3rd opposite party is the service provider. The Service Engineer of the 3rd opposite party wall mounted the TV on 09/03/2015 and when the TV was switched on a wavelike fold appeared on the screen and later the TV was replaced with a new one. subsequently, the replaced TV also became defective in the year 2017. The complaint was with regard to the LED panel. It is not disputed that the complaint arose after the warranty period. The TV was entrusted to the 3rd opposite party on 12/08/2017. The service / repair was done by the 3rd opposite party on chargeable basis and this was communicated to the opposite party on 30/09/2017. The repair charges amounted to Rs.7,500/- as can be seen from Ext.B1. There was some delay in carrying out the repairs. This is admitted in Ext.A5 communication and is further admitted by RW1 in the cross examination. There is no serious dispute on the above aspects.
- The main prayer in the complaint is for the replacement of the TV with a new one with applicable warranty or refund of the purchase price. The argument of the complainant is that the TV is having inherent manufacturing defect and so the opposite parties are liable to replace the same or refund the purchase price. The contention is that the TV showed complaint on installation and it was replaced with a new one, but the replaced TV also showed complaints which indicates that the TV is of inferior quality having manufacturing defect. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd opposite party submitted that there is no manufacturing defect to the product and the complaint to the replaced TV occurred after the warranty period and they carried out repairs/service on chargeable basis. It was pointed out that there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party, who has taken earnest efforts to redress the grievance of the complainant.
- On a consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, it is seen that there is absolutely nothing to show that the TV is having any inherent manufacturing defect. Apart from a vague averment made in the complaint and repeated in the proof affidavit, the complainant has no specific allegation as to any such manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the product is having any manufacturing defect. Not even a single document has been placed on record in support of the allegation. Moreover, the complaint arose after the warranty period. Even if it is taken that the complaint arose within the warranty period, the obligation of the manufacturer under the warranty is limited only to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective. The liability of the manufacturer is limited to the removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts. So the prayer for replacement of the TV with a new one or refund of the price cannot be allowed.
- The complaint was with regard to LED panel and the services were done on chargeable basis since the warranty period is over. The opposite parties cannot be found fault with in doing the service/repairs on chargeable basis once the warranty period is over. So there is no scope for any grievance with regard to demand of service/repair charges.
- However, it is an admitted fact that there was delay in the service/repairs. Even according to RW1 the defective TV was entrusted to the service centre on 12/08/2017 and the service/repair was completed only on 25/09/2017 and Ext.A5 communication was issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party only on 30/09/2017. The delay to resolve the issue with the LED is admitted by RW1 and also in Ext.A5 communication by the 2nd opposite party. The delay by itself amounts to deficiency of service. The TV is still with the 3rd opposite party. The complainant was put to mental agony and hardship due to the negligent attitude and deficient service of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. Points found accordingly.
- Point No:4 :- In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- C.C. NO: 385/2017 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
- The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
- The complainant can take back the TV from the 3rd opposite party after paying the repair charges.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 26thday of May, 2023. Date of Filing: 24-10-2017. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant : Ext.A1 - Copy of the invoice dated 28/02/2015. Ext.A2 - E-mail communication dated 11/07/2017. Ext.A3 -Copy of the lawyer notice dated 31/08/2017. Ext.A4 - Postal acknowledgement card. Ext.A5 - E-mail communication. Exhibits for the Opposite Party Ext.B1 - Job sheet dated 12/08/2017. Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 - Rajeev.K.R (Complainant) Witnesses for the opposite parties RW1 – Jis Cheriyan. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Forwarded/ By Order Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
