SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the price of TV as Rs.25,500/- along with compensation of Rs,25,000/- and cost Rs.5,000/- to complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had purchased MICROMAX LED TV for an amount of Rs.25,500/- from OP No.1 on 15/03/2019 by assuring 2 years guarantee and 3 years warranty. But the TV became defective after 8 months of purchase. Then the complainant informed the matter to OP No.1 and registered the complaint dated 20/11/2019 as No.KER2011190034 again on 08/08/2020 another complaint as No.KER1708200013. But the OP has not responded the complaint. Again registered the complaint on 12/12/2020 as No.KER1512200001 and 25/02/2021 registered as No.KER260221002 and 06/11/2021 also registered the complaint. After repeated the demand the OPs is not repair or replace the same in the warranty period. The TV is defective in the warranty period the OPs bound to repair the defective TV on free of cost. But the OPs are either to rectify the defect of TV or replace another set. But the OPs failed to do so. Thereafter on16/11/2021 the complainant send a lawyer notice to OP NO.1 to replace the TV set or refund the value of TV. But OP neither send a reply nor refund the value of the TV. The act of the OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to all OPs. All OPs received the notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared before the commission and filed their written version. OP No.3 received the notice and not filed version and not appeared before the commission. Hence OP3 is absent and set ex-parte. OP No.1 contended that he is only the selling dealer of 2nd OP. OP1 also submits that after the sale on 20/11/2019 the complainant contacted this OP for some minor complaint. The service personal visited the house of the complainant on the day itself and the defects were cured to the satisfaction of the complainant. On 06/11/2021 also the technicians of OP1 visited the complainant’s house and they found that the TV is working perfectly. But the complainant demanded a new TV set. So the replacement of TV can be done only by the manufacturer. There was no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.1’s liability may be exonerated.
OP No.2 contended that the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish the alleged manufacturing defect of the TV cannot be determined proper test. Moreover this OP is ready to replace his existing TV, the same is having defect. But the complainant is not ready to replace the TV at present because he purchased new TV in another company. So OP No.2 is not liable to refund the amount to complainant. There is no deficiency of service on his part. Hence the complaint 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?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A5 were marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence produced.
Issue No.1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. The complainant was examined as Pw1 and cross examined by OP NO.1 also.
The documents Ext.A1 to A5 marked on his part to substantiate his case. In Ext.A1 is the tax invoice which shows the complainant has paid Rs.25,500/- to OP1 on 15/03/2019. In Ext.A2 is the warranty and book let. As per Ext.A2 the warranty is 2 years. In the evidence of Pw1 who categorically stated that “നിങ്ങളുടെ TV യ്ക്ക് ഇപ്പോഴുള്ള തകരാറ് repair ചെയ്ത് മാറ്റാൻ പറ്റുന്ന തകരാറാണോ, നിർമ്മാണ തകരാർ ആണോ? നിർമ്മാണ തകരാർ ആണ്. TV യുടെ ഏത് ഭാഗത്താണ് നിർമ്മാണ തകരാർ എന്നും എന്താണെന്നും പറയാൻ പറ്റുമോ? picture board നാണ് തകരാറ്? The OPs stated that the service personal visited the complainant’s house and cure the defects of the TV. But no documents produced by the OP before the commission to prove that the defects of the TV cured and now the TV has no defect. The OP has a specific case that the TV has no defect then their duty to prove the same by taking necessary steps. But except the version of OP No.1 and 2 no other documents or evidence produced by OPs to prove their defense. The OPs vehemently stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part. As per the exhibits produced by the complainant it clearly shows that the TV was purchased on 15/03/2019 for an amount of Rs.25,500/-. But after on 20/11/2019, ie, within 8 months after the date of purchase and thereafter on 08/08/2020, 02/12/2020, 25/02/2021, 06/11/2021 the complainant continuously approach OP No.1 for curing the defects of the TV. But in the warranty period the OPs are not cured the defects of the TV and not replaced. So we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3
As discussed above the OPs are not ready to replace the new TV to the complainant at the warranty period. The complainant produce the Ext.A1 document which clearly shows that the complainant had paid 25,500/- to OP No.1. According to the complainant failure to provide a new TV the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of the TV of Rs.25,500/- to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- 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 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of TV of Rs.25,500/- along with Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.25,500/- 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. After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the TV from the complainant.
Exts.
A1 –Invoice bill
A2-Warranty and booklet
A3-Copy of lawyer notice
A4-Postal receipt
A5-Acknowledgment card
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
