Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 39/2021 (Filed on 15.02.2021)
Complainant : K.R.Rajeshkumar,
Kannamkara House
Kuzhimattom P.O
Kottayam-686533
(By Adv.Sindhu Mathew)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. My G Digital Hub
Kottumala Building
Nagambadom, Kottayam-686006
2. Smart Light,
M.R.Care Centre, D No.13/278
Kottayam
(By Adv.Vivek Soman K)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complainant purchased a 32 inch T.V. of Smart Light Company, the second opposite party herein from the first opposite party on 28.10.2021. The said T.V was used after some days in the film studio owned by the complainant. But in no time the T.V was switched off. As the T.V. was stopped working the dubbing work which was done in the studio had to be stopped. Due to this I could not complete the serial work and thus I had to suffer a loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. When the T.V. was stopped with a sound the complainant informed the 2nd opposite party and they had registered a complaint. But the 2nd opposite party sent a person to check the T.V only after several weeks and on inspection he informed the complainant that the display of the T.V was got defective and they had no responsibility of that. Again the when the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party they assured to repair the T.V but so far no action has been taken. The complainant had to suffer severe financial loss and mental agony due to this incidents.
Upon notice the 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version.
Despite the receipt of notice the 1st opposite party did not care to appear before the commission or file version. The 2nd opposite party contented in the version that the complainant is not a consumer as he had purchased the T.V for commercial activity and hence the complaint is not maintainable before this commission.
The allegations that the T.V produced sound soon after switching on and became defective thereafter is false and the complainant had not met with any loss due to the defect of the T.V. The display was broken due to midhanding/ fall/ misuse and the same is not covered by the warranty which was informed to the complainant by the technician. The opposite party received the complaint on 19/11/2020 and on registering the same it technician inspected the product on 21.11.2020 and found that the display of the T.V was broken due to fall or misuse. The same was intimated to the complainant and duly prepared report to that effect was also submitted to the opposite party on 24.11.2020. The technician took the photograph of the broken product from the premises of the petitioner on inspection of the product. The complainant thereafter quarrelled with technician and threatened the opposite party that he would file false case against the opposite party unless he was given with a new television. As per the warranty terms and condition and safety instruction the 2nd opposite party is not liable to repair or replace the display of the product which became defective due to the breakage caused by mishandling/ misuse or false. The complainant has not sent any photograph of the T.V and it is not correct that the complainant met with loss and damage due to the default of the television. The entire allegation against the 2nd opposite party is false and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 and A2 where as the 2nd opposite party also filed proof affidavit by one K.P.Muhammedkutty, the Managing Director and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked.
On perusal of the pleading and evidence on record we would frame the points as whether the complainant is a consumer and there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so for what relief the complainant is entitled for.
Points no.1 and 2
1) The case of the complainant is that he purchased the T.V of Smart Light Company on 28.10.2021 from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Soon after the installisation the said T.V became defective due to manufacturing defect and the complainant did not get proper service from the opposite party whereas the opposite party contended that the defect caused to the T.V was not due to any manufacturing defect but due to mishandling by the complainant.
2) Though the 2nd opposite party alleges that the complainant has purchased the T.V for commercial purpose and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission, it did not produce any evidence to prove that the complainant purchased the impugned T.V for any activity to make profit which has direct nexus with the purchase of the T.V. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased the T.V and used it for dubbing work of serials and all. As far as no sufficient evidence is put forth before us we cannot conclude that the complainant was using the T.V for a commercial purpose. So it is clear that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and he is very well entitled to file a complaint before this Commission. The complaint is maintainable before the Commission.
3) The allegation of the complainant is that the impugned T.V was having defect and it was not being switched on. The technician of the 2nd opposite party informed that it was due to the defect of the display. But the opposite parties contented that the display was got defective because of physical damages. As per the complainant the opposite parties assured him to repair the t.V but to no effect. Contrary to this contention the opposite parties affirmed that the defect of the TV was due to mishandling by the complainant and it was out of their warranty conditions.
4) The complainant has produced Exhibits A1 and A2 which are the invoice and the warranty card respectively. Though the complainant discarded the contention of the opposite party that the t.V got damaged due to mishandling/fall or misuse, he has not adduced any evidence to show that the T.V had any inherent defect.
5) The opposite party, who affirmed that the damage of the T.V has caused due to mishandling/fall or misuse has also not produced any evidence to that effect. Exhibits B1 and B2 are photographs but here is no supporting evidence to prove that these photographs are of the complainant’s defective T.V. No documentary evidence before us to find the defect was caused due to any physical cause. Though the opposite parties have stated that their technician inspected the TV and submitted a report to them no steps has been taken to produce the said report before this commission or to examine the said technician.
6) The opposite party has admitted that the T.V was defective in the warranty period itself. The complainant is eligible to get the T.V repaired free of cost in the warranty period. As the opposite party has failed to prove that the T.V was damaged due to any action of the complainant we are bound to act according to the warranty condition. Thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency in their service to assist their customer to enjoy the product purchased from them. So we are of the opinion that point no.1 can be found in favour of the complainant.
The complainant though alleges that he had to suffer a loss of Rs.2 lakhs because an agreement made with some other party, he had not produced any evidence to that effect. So point no.2 is found partly infavour of the complainant.
Hence the compliant is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to repair the tv of the complainant free of cost failing which the opposite party shall pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant and give Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the award amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of March, 2023.
Smt.Bindhu.R. Member sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1- Copy of tax invoice of myG, dated 28.10.2020.
A2- Original warranty card of Smart Light
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties.
B1 & B2- Original photographs
By order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar
