Date of filing: 10.07.2019
Date of disposal : 24.01.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR B.A., B.L., ..... MEMBER-I
RBT/CC. No.125/2022
THIS THUSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
(CC.No.125/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Mr.A.Elango, S/o.K.Alagan,
Residing at No.8, 1st Floor,
Duri Pillai Illam,
Durga Street, Sakthi Nagar,
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Onida Regional Office, Chennai,
Rep. by its Manager,
Mirc Electronics Limited,
18, 4th Lane, 1st Floor,
Nungambakkam High Road,
(Next To MOP Vaishnav College), Chennai 600 034.
2.Onida, Corporate Office,
Rep. by its Manager,
MIRC Electronics Limited Onida House,
G-1, M.I.D.C., Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093.
3.George Enterprises,
Rep. by its Manager,
No.15, Nelsonn Manikam Road,
Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094. ...Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.S.Manimaran, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s.S.K.Mariyappan, Advocate.
Counsel for the 3rd opposite party : M/s.R.Siva Kumar, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.125/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.125/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 09.01.2013 in the presence of Mr.S.Manimaran, Advocate counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective television along with prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the entire cost of the television along with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he purchased a Television Set manufactured by the 1st opposite party in model No.-ONIDA LED: LEO50FAIN, from the 3rd opposite party on 02.01.2017 for a cost of Rs.50,000/-, along with one year warranty period. During the month of September 2017 he could not to see the display of the picture but only hear the sound from the Television set. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint to the 1st opposite party through the toll free number and a complaint No.17101536380149 has been given to him and informed that in the course of one or two days the fault would be attended and rectified by their service engineer. One service engineer attended and checked the Television Set and had taken photographs of the spares which need to be replaced and informed the complainant that within a week the problem would be solved, but the same had not been solved until the month of March 2018. Hence the complainant had issued a legal notice on 26.03.2018 to both opposite parties and thereafter only 1st opposite party has replaced the present Television Set and the 2nd opposite party informed to the complainant that the replaced television set also covered under warranty for one year from the day of replacement and 1st opposite party had personally assured that there will be no such problem in the future. It was submitted that all of a sudden in the month of July 2018 the replaced Television set stopped working and the complainant was unable to see any picture or hear any audio from the television set, hence the complainant had raised a complaint dated 29.07.2018 through email for which the 1st opposite party had replied only on 06.08.2018. From thereafter there was no response from the opposite parties regarding the complaint raised by the complainant for the fault of the television set which was replaced by the 1st opposite party. Hence without any other option the complainant had sent legal notice dated 11.02.2019 highlighting the entire issue and the same has been received by the opposite parties on 15.02.2019. Further the opposite parties had issued a reply admitting the defect in the product and refused to compensate the same. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the entire cost of the television along with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-
The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interaila that the complainant had purchased the ONIDA LED: LEO50FAIN from the 3rd opposite party in good working condition. The complainant made a complaint with regard to the display of picture in the television. After receiving the complainant they had sent a service engineer and rectified the defects in the television which was acknowledged by the complainant. The complainant again lodged another complaint on 30.01.2018. Though the warranty period expired on 30.12.2017, in the interest of customer‘s service the opposite party sent a service Engineer to the complainant’s house, but the Service Engineer was not allowed to repair the television and was asked to replace with new television. After various negotiations the opposite parties replaced brand new television with good working condition to the complainant to maintain their reputation. The replacement of new television was received and acknowledged by the complainant by signing in the job sheet with fullest satisfaction. But the complainant again issued notice dated 11.02.2019 for deficiency in service stating the replaced new television was defective. After receipt of the notice the opposite parties had replied vide letter dated 05.03.2019. Thus they sought for complaint to be dismissed.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 3rd opposite party:-
The 3rd opposite party was a retailer of home appliances and electronics of all major brands from the year 1976. They offer only buying and selling of the products and the service of the products was only done by the manufacturers. Allegations were related to the opposite parties 1 & 2 as they are the manufacturer and service providers and therefore the 3rd opposite party cannot be made liable for the manufacture‘s action as there are no allegations against them. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed against them.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A8. On the side of opposite parties 1 to 3 inspite of sufficient notice they did not appear either to file proof affidavit or adduce arguments.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the complainant was successful in proving that the replaced television set was also a defective one suffering with manufacturing defectand whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not replacing the television nor refunding the cost of television?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Copy of purchase Bill dated 02.07.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Copy of email transaction dated 27.11.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Copy of email transaction dated 05.12.2018 & 18.12.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 26.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery Legal notice issued to the opposite party dated 03.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 11.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A7;
Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite parties 1 & 2 dated 05.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A8;
The complainant filed written arguments and represented that the same may be treated as oral arguments. On the side of opposite parties 1 to 3 inspite of sufficient notice they did not appear either to file proof affidavit or adduce arguments. On the basis of version filed by the opposite parties and the written arguments filed by the complainant the complaint was decided on merits after closing the evidence and arguments side of the opposite parties 1 to 3.
The factum of purchase of the television set, replacement of the same after it got repaired was not at all disputed by either parties. However, when the replaced television set again encountered a problem the same was not attended as per the version of the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 denied the same stating that the complainant did not permit them to rectify the mistake. As the product is not under the warranty period it could not be replaced. It is seen that as per Ex.A1 the product was purchased on 02.01.2017 for an amount of Rs.50,000/. As per Ex.A2 dated 27.11.2017 the complainant wanted replacement of the television based on the complaint of the Service Engineer. Further in the month of December again the complainant has made complaint to the opposite parties stating that the television was not working for nine months and wanted the television set to be replaced. It was also stated that he was provided with a very old television with full of dust. For the emails sent by the complainant the opposite parties 1 to 3 did not reply. Hence the version of the complainant has to be taken as proved. For the legal notice issued by the complainant dated 11.02.2019 seeking for refund of the cost of the television set along with compensation, a reply was made by the opposite parties 1&2 that they were ready to replace the product but as the complainant was adamant in seeking compensation they are not ready to fulfill the same. As opposite parties 1 & 2 did not dispute the allegations of the complainant with regard to defect in the Television Set. It is amply evident that the opposite parties 1 & 2 themselves accept that the replaced television was also defective. In such circumstances we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable for replacement of the television and in not doing so nor refunding the cost had committed deficiency in service.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service we direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the television with a new television along with a warranty within six weeks or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- the cost of television within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severely directed
a) To replace the television Model No. ONIDA LED: LEO50FAIN with a new television along with warranty within six weeks or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only), the cost of the television within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24th day of January 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 02.07.2017 Copy of the purchase bill. Xerox
Ex.A2 27.11.2017 Copy of the email transaction. Xerox
Ex.A3 05.12.2017 Copy of the email transaction. Xerox
Ex.A4 26.03.2018 Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A5 .................. Copy of acknowledgemnt Card for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A6 11.02.2019 Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A7 ............... Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A8 05.03.2019 Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite parties 1 &2. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
