DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 23/06/2022
CC/109/2022
Jinub Joseph,
Vattamattathil House,
Kilirani, Karakurissi,
Palakkad -678 595 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
1. Nestron Technology,
First Floor, KK Towers,
Thondayad Bypass,
Pantheerankavu.
Calicut -673 019
2. Hiba Enterprises,
Konikkazhi, P. O., - Opposite parties
Pulappatta
(Opposite parties 1 & 2 are exparte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant
The complainant purchased a Nestron Zigma X LED 43 inches Smart TV manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party dealer on 10th September,2021, exchanging his old TV worth Rs. 5000/-and paying Rs. 25000/- in cash. Within one month of purchase, the television screen became pale and white with horizontal lines. The opposite party 2 replaced the defective TV with a new one under warranty on 12/10/2021. The replaced TV also developed similar type of complaint and he got the same replaced. When the replaced one again developed the same problem the opposite parties refused to replace it again stating that the defect is not due to manufacturing defect, but due to mechanical damage caused by throwing some objects on the screen. Hence he approached this Commission seeking refund of Rs. 30000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs. 30000/- towards mental agony and expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. First opposite party didn't enter appearance, hence was set ex-parte. Second opposite party though entered appearance, failed to file version with in the statutory period. Hence called in open court and set ex-parte.
3. Issues involved in this case are:
- Whether the TV purchased had manufacturing defect?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs as to cost & compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext. A-1 to
A-3 as evidence.A-1 is the tax invoice of the TV purchased by the complainant from the second opposite party, A-2 is the warranty card and A-3 is the copy of review remarks by various consumers of Nestron products extracted from their website.
5. Issue A & B
From the chronology of incidents narrated in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, which is not challenged, it very clear that the product supplied had manufacturing defects. Here, it is very pertinent to note that the TVs supplied as replacements also developed the same complaint. Further, the opposite parties failed to utilize the opportunity given by this Commission to present their version to the allegations raised by the complainant. Ext A-3 being opinions made by laymen and forms part of public poll, we cannot rely on Ext. A3 to arrive at an opinion regarding the quality of the product in question. Hence, there is every reason to believe that the TV sold to the complainant had serious manufacturing defects, which amounts to deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Since the original TV and two replacements had the same defect, there is no meaning in ordering another replacement, which will not be in the interest of the complainant.
Issue C&D
As a prima-facie case of manufacturing defect is established as above the complainant is entitled for reliefs.
6. The complaint is therefore allowed ordering the following reliefs.
- Opposite parties are directed to jointly and severally refund Rs.30000/- being the cost of TV along with interest, @10%pa from the date of purchase till the date of payment.
- Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 25000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost.
- The opposite party 2 is directed to make the payments as above and may claim the amount from the opposite party 1 during the course of their regular business transactions.
The opposite parties are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay to the complainant Rs.250/- per month or part thereof until the full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant
Ext. A-1: Tax invoice of the TV purchased by the complainant from OP- 2 dated
10/09/21.
Ext. A-2: Warranty Card issued for the TV.
Ext. A-3: Review Remarks about Nestron products from Website.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined- Nil
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be weeded out.
