Dated this the 20th day of March 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 166/2018 (Filed on 30.08.2021)
Complainant : Sunilkumar
Paravanparambil House
Perumbanachi P.O
Thengana, Kottayam Dist
(By Adv.Jose Thomas)
Vs
Opposite parties :1. Manager, Nandilath G Mart
Karottukunnel Arcade
Nagambadom, Kottayam
(By Adv.K.A.Bijoy)
2. Managing Director
Videocon Industries Limited
14 Kms stone, Aurangabad
Paithan road, Chitgon 43105
India.
O R D E R
Sri.K.M.Anto
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Videocon TV from the first opposite party on 23/8/2015 for Rs.18,990/-. The TV was working properly up to 2017 after which there were issues with the video of the TV. This complaint was reported to the first opposite party. The first opposite party sent a mechanic and a panel was installed, even then the TV was not working. The mechanic suggested replacing the TV. On intimation, the first opposite party promised to give a replacement for the TV. The warranty on the TV will end on 23.08.2018. Even though the complainant approached the first opposite party several times, a replacement of the TV was not provided. The first opposite party is a dealer of the second opposite party. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. This complaint is filed for getting a replacement of the TV or for getting a refund of the cost paid along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.2,000/-
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The first opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is that the complainant had purchased an LED TV manufactured by the second opposite party on 23.08. 2015. The warranty card issued by the second opposite party was given to the complainant at the time of purchase. The comprehensive warranty to the TV was for one year from the date of purchase and an extended warranty of two years in addition to the one-year comprehensive warranty was also offered to the complainant. The complainant intimated the defective vision of the picture and the matter was intimated to the second opposite party. The second opposite party engaged a service engineer to attend the complaint and it was rectified without any cost. The first opposite party had not given any promise to give a replacement of the TV. The complainant can avail the service of any of the service centers of the second opposite party. No evidence is adduced by the complainant to prove that the TV is defective and not working properly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
Even though copy of the complaint was duly served to the second opposite party, they failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. Hence the second opposite party was set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibit A1 and A2. The first opposite party filed proof affidavit; no documentary evidence was marked. The complainant was cross examined by the first opposite party as PW1.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the first opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Points 1 and 2
On going through the complaint, version of the first opposite party and evidence on record it is clear vide Exhibit A1 that the complainant had purchased an LED VIDEOCON IVC32F02A model TV from the first opposite party on 23.08.2015 for a consideration of Rs.18,990/-. The TV became defective on January 2017 and that defect was intimated to the first opposite party. Even though a technician of the opposite parties replaced the panel of the TV the TV became defective again and was not working. The first opposite party also admits that the TV was given a comprehensive Warranty for one year from the date of purchase and extended warranty for further two years after the one year comprehensive warranty.
Exhibit A2 is the Videocon Extended Warranty card issued by the second opposite party. The terms and conditions of the Exhibit A2 extended warranty is that for availing the extended warranty services, the customer can take the product to the nearest authorized service center for repair or the customer can call on 39404049 prefix STD code of state capital) or E-mail at Even though the complainant deposed that CXv VIDEOCON I¼\n \nÀ½n¨ TV-bmWv. VIDEOCON I¼-\n-bpsS Iogn-ep-ff kÀhokv skâ-dp-I-fn GXnse-¦nepw Cu än.-hn-bpsS dn¸-bdnwKpambn _Ô-s¸«v \n§Ä tkh\w tXSn-bn-«p-tm (Q). Dv (A). witness adds tjm¸p-ImÀ ]d-ªp-hn-«n-«mWv h¶Xv. The complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove that he had approached the authorized service center of the second opposite party for rectifying the defects of the TV within the warranty period. Also the complainant does not have a case that he had intimated the defect of the TV to the second opposite party via phone or through email. On the basis of the above discussed findings it is evident that the complainant had not approached the opposite parties as per the terms and conditions as provided in the Exhibit A2 warranty card for getting the repair works of the TV under warranty. The complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cogent evidence. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of March, 2023.
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of the complainant
A1 - Original Invoice of Nandilath G Mart dated 23.08.2015
A2- Original Extended Warranty offer card of Videocon
Sworn statement from the side of complainant
PW1- Sunil kumar, S/o Gopalan Achari, Paravanparambil House, Perumpanachi P.O, Thengana.
Exhibits marked from the side of the opposite parties
Nil
By order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar
