SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the value of TV for Rs.16,600/- along with compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief
The Complainant had purchased LED Video Con TV for an amount of Rs.16,600/- from OP No.1 on 16/10/2015 . As per the advertisement and offer of OP No.1 is that the TV is of high quality and there are no defects and he also assured that 3 year warranty of the TV. Only believing the words of OP No.1 the complainant had purchased the TV. The OP No.1 also assured that if the TV caused any damage within the warranty period the free service also guaranteed. Then the complainant’s TV became defective within few days after the purchase. Immediately the complainant informed the matter to OP No.1. But no steps taken by OP No.1. 7 months after the purchase of TV the complainant entrusted the TV to OP No.2, the service centre of OP No.1. The display and picture of the TV is not working properly. The OP No.2 assured that they repaired the TV with free of cost during the warranty period. But after this time the TV is not properly repaired by the OPs. Then the complainant demanded that the OP’s would refund the value of TV for Rs.16,600/- to the complainant. The TV is within the custody of OP No.2 also. The act of the OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to all OPs. OP No.1 entered before the commission and filed his written version. OP No.2 is the service centre and he closed the office and the complainant is not take fresh steps against OP No.2. So the OP No.2 is deleted from the party array. OP No.3 is set ex-parte. The OP No.1 contended that he is only the dealer of the product. The replacement and refund for the product is the responsibility of the manufacturer. The OP No.1 has not caused any financial loss or mental agony to the complainant. So OP No.1 is the merely the dealer and he cannot be held liable for the same and the liability of OP No.1 may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
At the time of evidence the OP No.1 filed questionnaire before the commission and the complainant filed answers to the interrogatories. On complainants side Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. On OP’s side Dw1 was examined and Ext.B1 and B2 marked.
Issue No.1
The complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. But the complainant was not appeared before the commission for giving evidence. She is an age old lady and not in a position to appear before the commission. Then OP No.1 submitted interrogatories before the commission and complainant filed answers to interrogatories also. On complainants side Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. According to the complainant on 16/10/2015 she purchased LED VIDEO CON TV and she paid Rs.16,600/- to OP No.1 and it clearly shows in Ext.A1 document. Ext. A2 is the complaint registered by the Technician (Vijesh) dated 04/05/2018 which clearly shows that the complaint noted as “Display panel broken”. Moreover the warranty column noted as “Extended warranty”. In Ext.A3 is the is the Videocon extended warranty offer card to shows that customer shall be offered extended warranty of 2 years in addition to 1 year comprehensive warranty. So it is clear that the TV is defective within the warranty period. The TV is within the custody of OP No.2 on 04/05/2018 itself. But the OP’s are not cured the defect. Moreover the complainant demanded to replace the TV instead of curing the defect. But the OP’s are not ready to cure the defects or replace a new one. Thereafter OP No.2 closed the service centre office also. The complainant is not take fresh steps against OP NO.2 and the commission deleted OP No.2 from the party array. At that time no objection raised by OP P No.1 and 3. In the evidence of Dw1 he deposed that പരാതിക്കാരി ആരുടെ കയ്യിലാണ് TV നന്നാക്കാൻ കൊടുത്തത്? കേസ് വന്നതിന് ശേഷം Service centre ൽ കൊടുത്തു എന്നാണ്. ഞാനാണ് Service centre ൽ നിർദ്ദേശിച്ച് കൊടുത്തത്. കേസ് വന്നതിന് ശേഷമാണ്. In Dw1’s the re-examination he deposed that Videocon െൻറ product defective ആയാൽ എന്താണ് ചെയ്യുക? Customer അറിയിച്ചുകഴിഞ്ഞാൽ Defect cure ചെയ്തു കൊടുക്കും. But in this case the OP’s are not cured the defect of the TV. So the act of OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the issue No.1 found in favor of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 &3
As discussed above the OPs are not ready to replace a new TV to the complainant. The complainant produced Ext.A1 document which clearly shows that the complainant has paid Rs.16,600/- to OP No.1. So the OPs directly bound to rederssal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs 1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the value of TV for Rs.16,600/- along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the value of TV for Rs.16,600/- to the complainant along with of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.16,600/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Cash bill
A2- Complaint registered receipt dated 04/05/2018
A3- Extend warranty (1+2 years)
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
