IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

 Thursday the 27^thday of July, 2023.

                                        Filed on 14.02.2023

Present

1. Smt.P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB  (President in Charge )
2. Smt C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
   •  

CC/No.43/2023

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite parties:-

Sri. Soni.F                                                                       1.         My G Care

Pathiyil House                                                                              Room No. 26/1310-B

Poonthoppu Ward,                                                                      S.D.Pharmacy Building, 

Avalookkunnu.P.O                                                                      Near Iron Bridge, Alappuzha-11

Alappuzha                                                                                   Rep by Authorized Signatory

(Adv. S. Ashamol)                                                                       (Adv. Aparna C. Menon)

                                                                                        2.         TCL, TTE Technology India Pvt.

                                                                                                   Ltd, Boomerang  building

                                                                                                   Office No. B-705, 7^th floor

                                                                                                   Chandivali Farm Road, .

                                                                                                   Andheri(E) Mumbai City

                                                                                                   Maharashtra- 400072

                                                                                                   (Exparte)

O R D E R

SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)

Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

1.   Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows: -

 Complainant had purchased a smart TV on 26/1/2022 for an amount of Rs. 32,000/-from 1^st opposite party which manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant availed loan from Bajaj Finance for purchasing the said TV for which he was repaying Rs.2870/- as EMI. It was assured by 1^st opposite party that if any defect occurred  within 4 years of its purchase, the same would be cured by the authorized mechanic from its service centre or else if the said defect would not be cured,  the TV   is to be replaced with full warranty as per the direction of the said authorized mechanic.

       On 28/11/2022 the said TV stopped working  and on next day the complaint informed to the 1^st opposite party. After  two days  mechanic from the service centre of 1^st opposite party inspected the TV and informed that they shall be given a new TV since the defect of the TV could not be rectified. Subsequently on request of several times, the 1^st opposite party installed  a TV by made belief being a new TV. Believing the words of  1^st opposite party, after operating the said TV  it was understood that the said TV was used by some other person. On intimating the said fact the 1^st opposite party  entrusted  to settle the same, but not yet been done by the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant called the manager of 1^st opposite party during December 2022  and January 2023 where the  manager also assured to settle the matter by calling the service centre of 2^nd opposite party.  But then also no response from opposite parties.

           It revealed from the ID of  the said 2^nd TV, the said TV was used in the ID of Sajijadhav1012 @ gmail.com.  in which  installed so many applications including game. Thus the opposite parties gave the complainant an old TV pretended that  it is  a fresh one which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties and hence the opposite parties  are liable to replace  the  defective TV and compensation to the complainant for which the complainant filed this complaint.

2.   In response  to the  complaint the 1^st opposite party filed the version as follows:-

 The complaint is not maintainable either  in law or on fact. The 1^st opposite party is only the re-seller of the products manufactured  by  other company. The complainant had purchased the said TV of his own whims and  fancy and also on his  satisfaction.

      There was no defects on the TV at the time of purchase. It was only due to the negligent  use of  the complainant the said TV was being defective.  The 1^st opposite party intimated to the  complainant to approach the  service centre for curing the defect of the product. As per the said direction it was done by the complainant and also admitted in the complaint.

       Thereafter the 1^st opposite party compelled to give another TV for his use and the complainant is using the same till now. Accordingly  two TVs are in the custody of the complainant. 1^st opposite party is neither a manufacturer nor a service centre to cure the defects of the products, and a re-seller the 1^st opposite party is not liable to the same and hence no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party as alleged in the complaint. In the said circumstance the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

2^nd opposite party remains  exparte.

3.  On the above pleadings the following points  are raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the TV?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 1 lakh as compensation from opposite parties?
4.  Reliefs and cost?
4.  
5.  

PW1 is the complainantin this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 and A2.

Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a smart TV from 1^st opposite party on 26/1/2022 for an amount of Rs. 32,000/- which manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. It was assured by 1^st opposite party that if any defect occurred to the said TV within 4 years from its purchase, the same would be cured by the authorized mechanic from its service centre, or else, if the said defect wouldn’tbe cured, the TV is to be replaced with full warranty as per the direction of thesaid authorised mechanic. The complainant alleged that on 28/11/2022, ie within 1 year from the purchase of the saidTV, it became defective. On intimation from the complainant the mechanic from the service centre of 1^st opposite party inspected the TV after two days of intimation and informed that they shall be given a new TV since the defect of the TV could not be rectified.Thereafter, on request of the complainant for several times, the 1^st opposite party installed a TV by made belief it being a new TV. Subsequent to its starting, it was understood that the said TV was onewhich earlier used by some other person.When the said fact was informed to the 1^st opposite party, they entrusted to settle the matter, but not succeed even after informed to theManager of 1^st opposite party.Hence this complaint.

Admittedly the complainant had purchased a smart TV from1^st opposite party which manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.It was also admitted that, when the said TV was became defective the 1^st opposite party gave another TV to thecomplainantfor his use.

As per Ext.A2 it is realized thatthe TV given by the opposite party for the use of complainantafter noticing the defect of the TV purchased on 26/1/2022 the ID log in is of a third person as allegedby the complainant. It is also to be noted that the TV purchased by the complainant on26/1/2022 for an amount of Rs. 32,000/- and it was became defective in working after a short period of about 10 months.Certainlya common man buys a product for such a huge amountwith a life expectancy as such the said person mighthave shocked when it became worthless within a short period. As contented by the 1^st opposite party, they cannotevade from the liability since they also offering transparency and creditability as their motto for which the complainant choose the product from 1^st opposite party and thus the 1^st opposite party also responsible forreplacing the defective TV of thecomplainant shown in Ext.A1.Since the technician of 1^st opposite party not found any physical damage to the TV and also provide another TV for the use of the complainantas they are bound to the same, the 1^st opposite party cannot be evaded from their responsibility to replace the defective TV to the complainant. In the said circumstances we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to cure the defect of the TV, or if not curable the complainant is entitled to replace the same with a new one of same model since the said defect occurred within a short period of its purchase. As we ordered the replacement of the defective TV, no amountordered as compensation. These points are found accordingly.

In the result the complaint stands allowed in part.

1.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to replace the smart TV given to the complainant as a new one  for the defective TV shown in  Ext.A1.

2. Complainant is entitled Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings from opposite parties jointly and severally.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of  this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 27^th  day of July, 2023.                                                     

                                                                  Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)

                          Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -          Soni.F (Complainant)

Ext.A1                 -        Tax Invoice dtd. 26/1/2022       

Ext.A2                 -        Photographs.

Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil

// True Copy //

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-