Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/71/2022

M.Manoharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.One plus Heard office ,The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

29 Dec 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                Complaint presented on :19.05.2022

                                                          Date of disposal              :29.12.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,             : PRESIDENT

                                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                   THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.71/2022

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 29^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

 

M.Manoharan

345/88, Melapatti Ponnappan Street,

Perambur,

Chennai-600 011                                                      …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

1.M/s.One Plus Head Office,

Represented by its managing Director,

5^th Floor, Kabra Excelsior,

Opposite Wipro Park 80 Feet Road,

Koramangala, 1^st Block, Bangalore,Karnataka,India.

 

2.M/s.Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt ltd,

Authorized service Center of One plus TV,

Represented by its manager,

Door No.6A, Karnan Street,

Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024

                                                                               …. Opposite Parties

 

 

 

Complainant                                               :M/s. M.Manoharan (Party in Person)

Counsel for 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties      : Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite parties to refund the a sum of Rs.69,899/- towards the value of the Television with interest @ 24% from the date of purchasing and till the date of disposal of the complaint and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and to pay Rs.50,000/- by the opposite parties for cost of the complaint.

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

         The complainants states that based on the advertisement issued by the opposite parties, the complainant had booked and purchased through online shopping viz Amazon Oneplus 138.8 CM (55 Inches) Q1 Series 4K certified Android QLED TV 55Q 1IN-1 (Black) (without stand) I B07W5QZQ45 (B072TQZQ45) HSN:8528” SMART Android Television from the 1^st opposite party on 14.03.2020 for Rs.69,899/- vide Invoice No.SMAB-163728, Invoice Details : TN-SMAB-104-1920 with two years warranty and the television was delivered on 15.03.2020.  The complainant submits that on 10.03.2022 the complainant came to know that Smart Television Display showing the colour Blue and a stripe was appearing on TV and immediately the complainant booked online complainant with customer care service of opposite parties on 10.03.2022 vide Customer ID No.2C10-43746CHS01-6461726.  The complainant further submits that on 14.03.2020 the 2^nd opposite party service engineer visited the complainant’s home and checked the display problem of TV and informed that the new Smart Television need to replace and confirmed that the same will be delivered within 15 days.  But after lapse of more than 50 days new television was not delivered and the complainant asked the opposite parties to replace or refund and to inform the further process.  The complainant waited for more than 50 days and there was no reply from the opposite parties and customer care and when contacted the opposite parties about the status of the job id, it was informed by the Customer care service centre that television had reached the service centre.  The complainant further submits that so many days waited there was no response from the opposite parties except an e-mail apology, but the problem was not resolved.   The complainant further states that a Television with manufacturing defect was issued to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is undergoing untold pain and suffering and the act of opposite parties caused severe mental agony to complainant and therefore the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.69,899/- towards cost of TV with 24% interest from the date of purchasing, Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, pain, stress, untold hardship and severe torture and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint.  Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

Notice served to opposite parties.  Despite receipt of notice the opposite parties did not respond and hence set ex-parte.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in serviceon the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainants had filed proof affidavit, written argument and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on their side The opposite parties remained ex-parte.

4. Point No.1:-

The complainants alleged that based on the advertisement issued by the opposite parties, the complainant had purchased 55 inches Smart Android Television through Amazon on 14.03.2020 for Rs.69,899/- with two years warranty and the television was delivered on 15.03.2020 and on 10.03.2022 the complainant noticed that the disputed Smart TV Display was showing the colour Blue and a stripe was appeared and immediately the complainant booked online complainant with customer care service of opposite parties on 10.03.2022 vide Customer ID No.2C10-43746CHS01-6461726.  The complainant further alleged that on 14.03.2020 the 2^nd opposite party service engineer visited the complainant’s home and checked the display problem of TV and informed that the new Smart Television need to replace and confirmed that the same will be delivered within 15 days.  But after lapse of more than 50 days new television was not delivered and the complainant asked the opposite parties to replace or refund and to inform the further process.  In the absence of any response from the opposite parties the complainant contacted the opposite parties about the status of the job id, it was informed by the Customer care service centre that television had reached the service centre.  Again, the complainant waited but there was no response except an e-mail apology communication from opposite parties, but the problem was not resolved.   The complainant further alleged that a Television with manufacturing defect was issued to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused untold pain and mental agony.

2) In the absence of appearance of opposite parties who were set ex-parte, we have carefully gone through the averments and documents submitted by the complainant.  On perusal of Ex.A1, the Tax Invoice, it is observed that complainant had purchased one 55 inches Android QLED TV from Amazon online platform from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai for a sum of Rs.69,899/- on 14.03.2020.  It is observed from Ex.A2, the job sheet of 2^nd opposite party, the complaint No. 2C10-43746CHSC01-6461726 was registered on 10 March 2022 and the TV was under warranty and the complaint was reported as Display issue.  It is also observed from the job card that there is a remark by Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party as Plain ruster issue on the screen.  But there is no mention whether the defect was rectified and the complaint was set right and closed by the 2^nd opposite party.  On perusal of Ex.A3, the e-mail communication on 04.09.2022 from 1^st opposite party, it reveals that 1^st opposite party had admitted that there is an issue in the Television and also informed that parts have been ordered and as soon as it is received the technician will re-visit to assist. 

3) From the above facts, it is observed that the disputed TV was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and it was working well for two years approximately. Though the complainant contended that the Television has manufacturing defect, but no proof documents or expert opinion was placed before this Commission.  Further the complainant contended that 2^nd opposite party had agreed to replace the Television but on perusal of documents no such mention was made in job card by the 2^nd opposite party and no communication from opposite parties is available and therefore the contention of the complainant is not maintainable on the above point.   At the same time, it is observed that the television was under warranty was not disputed by opposite parties as seen in Ex.A2.  It is also an admitted fact that the Television is having some issues and the opposite parties have agreed to repair the same as evidenced from Ex.A3.  But it appears from the averments of the complainant that the problem was not set right by the opposite parties from March 2022 which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  In the absence of contra view of the opposite parties, we are of the conclusive opinion that opposite parties failed to repair the television which is well within the warranty period at the time of complaint and it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to complainant and hence it is found that the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Point No.1 answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

          Based on the findings given to the PointNo.1,since there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service is observed on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for not repairing the television which is well within the warranty period and towards hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant. Since the complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the television and since the complainant has already used the TV for 2 years hence the complainant is not entitled for the refund of television cost as claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

           In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay to complainant Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for not repairing the television which is well within the warranty period and towards hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainants within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29^th  day of December 2023.

 

         MEMBER-I             MEMBER – II                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	14.03.2020	Invoice from the first opposite party
Ex.A2		Job sheet issued by the second opposite party
Ex.A3	04.05.2022	Email from the opposite parties

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      No documents

 

MEMBER-I             MEMBER – II                            PRESIDENT