SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OPs to refund the  value of TV for  Rs.20,250/- to the complainant  along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental  agony caused  to the complainant and litigation cost  for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of  OPs.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  had purchased Nestron Led TV 43 ZigmaXSmart from 1^st OP on 30/12/2020 for an amount of Rs.20250/- .  At the time of purchasing the TV, the OP assured 36 months warranty.  The complainant had purchased the TV only on believing the advertisement  and assurance of  OPs.  The OPs assured that the product  is  free from al defects.   But in the warranty period on August 2021 the TV became defective.  Then the complainant registered the complaint  before OP’s service centre at Kozhikode.  Then the 2^nd OP’s technician  within 30 days of registering the complaint, he reinstalled a new TV to  the complainant’s house.  But on April 2023 the said TV again defective.  Then the complainant register the complaint before the Nestron service centre, Kozhikode as register  No.174233008 dtd.17/4/2023.  Thereafter no technician came to complainant’s house for checking the TV.  At  last on  18/5/2023 the complainant produced the TV before  NRE,Kannur (1^st OP) and the receipt No.11014 dtd.18/5/2023.  But  thereafter the technician  not repaired  the TV with free of cost. So the act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony  and financial loss .  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OPs.  Hence the complaint.

         After  filing this complaint  notice issued  to both OPs.  Both OPs received the notice  and 1^st OP entered appearance before the commission  and filed his written version. 2^nd OP  not appeared before the commission and not filed version.  So 2^nd OP is set exparte.  1^st OP  contended that after the sale of the TV the complainant never contacted this OP.  At the time of purchase this OP had specifically informed that the  after sale service is to be done by 2^nd OP.  The complainant contacted 2^nd OP and they replaced the TV set with a  brand new one to the satisfaction of the complainant.  According to the agreement with the manufacturer the after sale service is  the liability of the manufacturer and the 1^st OP is not liable  for any after sale complaint regarding the service. So there is no deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st OP and the complaint  may be dismissed.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. On 1^st OP’s side  except the version no oral or documentary evidence adduced.

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 cross examined as PW1 by 1^st OP.  He relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. According to the complainant on 30/12/2020 the complainant had purchased Nestron Led TV  for an amount of Rs.20250/- from 1^st OP that shows in Ext.A1 tax invoice.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by 2^nd OP to the complainant.  As per the warranty card it clearly shows that warranteed against defective material workmanship for a period of 36 months from the date of purchase.  Ext.A3 is the delivery receipt dtd.18/5/2023 and the defects noted as “not working”.  The complainant stated that the 1^st TV is defective in the year August 2021.  Thereafter the OPs replaced a new TV to the complainant.  But the replaced TV also defective on 17//4/2023.  No separate bill is given by the OP to the complainant.  So it is clear that the TV have some manufacturing defect and in the warranty period the 2^nd OP is liable to cure the defect  with free of cost.  But they fails to do.  Then the complainant constrained to purchase another TV.  In the evidence of PW1 who clearly stated that” TV repair  ചെയ്ത് ശരിയാക്കി വെച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് പറയുന്നു?  എനിക്കറിയില്ല.TV repairചെയ്തുവെച്ചു എന്ന കാര്യം അറിഞ്ഞതുകൊണ്ടാണ് നിങ്ങൾ expert നെ വെച്ച് പരിശോധിക്കാതിരുന്നത്എന്നു പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല.“ So it is clear that the defective TV in the custody of OPs.  According to the complainant failure to cure the defects of the TV, the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  So the act of OPs, 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 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

    As discussed above ,the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the TV within the warranty period.  The complainant produced Ext.A1 document which clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the TV for an amount of  Rs.20,250/-.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by 2^nd OP to shows that the warranty of the product for a period of 36 months from the date of purchase.  So the replaced TV also defective on 17/4/2023 and the defect noted as not working.  Therefore we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to cure the defects of the TV with free of cost.  But they fails to do.  So the OPs are jointly and severally liable to  refund the value of TV worth Rs.20250/- to the complainant along with Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation  cost.      Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the Opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to  refund the value of TV worth Rs.20250/- to the complainant along with Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation  cost  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.20250/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  If the OPs fails to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2- Warranty card

A3- Delivery receipt dtd.18/5/2023

PW1- P.Pramod- complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                               Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR