IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of June, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 211/2023 (Filed on 06/07/2023)
Complainant : Suresh Kumar CR
Aged 54 years
S/o Rajappan Nair
Permanently residing at
Choorapadil (Ushas)
Pazhayidom P.O
Kottayam – 686 520
Now residing at TC 96/1313,
Yashica, Thuruvickal P.O
Trivandrum – 695 011
(By Adv.Vineeth V.T)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. The Manager,
Oxygen Digital Shop
Kinattummootil Building
VIII/1074-S.H.Mount
Kottayam, Kerala – 686 006
2. The Manager
Oxygen Digital Shop,
XXI-9-A, 9-B, 9-C, Ashirvad Complex,
Near Panchayath Office,
Kanjirappally,
Kottayam – 686 507
(By Advs.Arathy K & Manu Nair)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The case of the complainant is as follows:
Fascinated by the advertisement and offer of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the second opposite party on 01/04/2022 to purchase an LED TV. The employees of the opposite party informed that the TV sets of Ozone company are a brand manufactured by the first opposite party. Hence, it is cheaper, and its repair and maintenance services are done at their level. They also assured that the performance of the instrument is very good, compared to any other product and has a replacement warranty of one year. Reposing the words and assurance made by the second opposite party about the product of the first opposite party, the complainant purchased ozone: LED TV: OZONE 32 SMART 32ZOX1S 32" SMART ozx32sly-2240-ch0322s-0040 TV bearing No: R122/KPL/420 on 10/04/2022 against a consideration of Rs. 9000/-.On 08/04/2023, the TV was not working properly; it was flickering thereafter and was not rebooting. On 09/04/2023, the complainant took the TV to the second opposite party, whereas it being a holiday, none was available. After that, he contacted some of the managers there, and upon their advice, the product was handed over to the 2nd opposite party for replacement as per warranty condition on 10/04/2023.
The second opposite party informed the complainant that to complete the formalities, they need three working days, and upon sanction, the same will be replaced on or before 13/04/2023. Apart from that, the complainant made a special request to them, citing the age and requirement of his parents, and the product was purchased only for that purpose. Moreover, the next three days were holidays and festive days also. They were eager to watch particular programs, and upon the assurance, the well-old parents were eagerly waiting for the instrument. On 13/04/2023, when the complainant contacted one, Mr. Gibin of the second opposite party, he replied that he would contact the complainant after ascertaining the reason for the delay. The complainant made several attempts to contact them, but nobody was attending. Almost every day, he tried to contact all the people, and on these days, one Ms. Vismaya answered him that the product was to be transported to Kottayam.
Further, she promised the complainant that he would get the product before 19/04/2023 at any cost. Since there was no news, he also contacted the first opposite party's office, but none was aware of the disposal of his claim. They asked him to contact some other department each time and promised to reply in an hour, but nothing materialized. From 12/04/2022 onwards, the complainant has sent various people and contacted the opposite parties, but they failed to replace the TV set even after 22 days.
The opposite parties, the manufacturer and distributor, failed to return it after 23 days. They were aware that the product sold to the complainant did not have any quality as assured by them but was for their illegal enrichment.
On 30/04/2023, when the complainant contacted the second opposite party, they were not sure about returning his television set; hence, he demanded a refund of the money with interest. On 02/05/2023, the complainant received a call from the second opposite party and asked him to collect the TV.
To his utter dismay and shock, the complainant found that the second opposite party had returned him an old TV set of Redmi company that had been used for many years, knowing well that his parents could be deceived since they were aged and ailing. The product given to him on replacement was manufactured much before the TV set that the complainant purchased originally.
The opposite parties have no right to change the complainant's choice or change the product without his consent. They were duty bound to immediately replace it with a new TV on 10/04/2023 itself, whereas they took 23 days without any reason, which has caused a loss of enjoyment to an elderly couple.
The complainant repeatedly approached the opposite parties and issued a legal notice dated 08/05/2023 demanding them to refund the price of the television, i.e., Rs. 9,000/- and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for all the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant and his elderly parents. They did not respond to it. The TV set costing Rs.9,000/- was under a replacement warranty for the first year and became defective during the warranty period.
Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to refund of Rs. 9,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, hardships, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment suffered by the complainant and his elderly parents due to the unfair business practice and deficiency in service of the opposite parties, along with Rs. 20,000 as the cost of this litigation.
Upon notice from this commission, opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed a joint version contending as follows:
It is true that the complainant had purchased a 32-inch 'Ozone Smart LED TV' on 10.04.2022 from the second opposite party for consideration of Rs. 9000/-; the product was also offered a one-year warranty from the date of purchase. However, the averment that the second opposite party induced the complainant to purchase the product is incorrect. The purchase was a personal choice of the complainant on being satisfied with the quality and specifications of the TV, the brand, and its affordability.
It is submitted in the version that it is clear from the pleadings of the complainant that the product was being used without any break from morning to late night would be extensive use or rather misuse; it made clear that any electronic product would require reasonable usage pattern, in the instant case it is clear that the product was misused. Besides, it is stated that there might be various reasons for a television set to get defective, which include electrical fluctuations, misuse, etc. At any rate, the product of the opposite party does not suffer from any manufacturing defect.
On 10.04.2023, the complainant approached the second opposite party and claimed the replacement of the TV. It is submitted that on 09.04.2023, the warranty of the product also expired as one year from the date of purchase elapsed. Despite this, the second opposite party, as a gesture of goodwill to redress the grievance, took the product for free repair, and the complainant was intimated that repair could be undertaken subject to the time required for making the spare parts available. The production of the brand purchased by the complainant had stopped. However, the complainant was adamant to get the product repaired and delivered instantaneously. In the given circumstances, the opposite party, being committed to their customers even though the warranty had expired, generously offered the complainant a brand new Redmi TV, which was priced more than the TV purchased by the complainant, even though it was not of the latest make. The arrangement was accepted by the complainant, and on 02.05.2023, he took delivery of the replaced TV through his driver.
The replacement of the Redmi TV was given to the complainant upon reaching a consensus, as the production of the Ozone model TV had stopped. The opposite parties made earnest efforts to redress the grievance of the complainant most effectively, even though he was not eligible for a warranty, by replacing it with a superior-made product. The opposite parties are duty-bound to replace a product only subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty offered at the time of purchase. The opposite party has deviated from the warranty policy and given the best effective solution by replacement to avoid the hardship of the elderly parents of the complainant, even though the complainant is not eligible for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A4. Witness of the opposite parties was examined as DW1. There is no documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.
We would like to consider the following points in evaluating the complaint, version, and the evidence on record.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
POINTS 1 & 2:-
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased an Ozone Smart LED TV' on 10.04.2022 from the second opposite party for consideration of Rs. 9000/-. Exhibit A1 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.9000 to the second opposite party towards the price of the Smart TV. The specific case of the complainant is that on 8-4-2023, the TV became defective, and on 9-4-2023 being a holiday, the TV was handed over to the second opposite party for replacement under warranty on 10- 4-2023. According to the complainant, after repeated demands and requests, the opposite party replaced the television on 2-5-2023 with an old television from Redmi Company, Which was manufactured much before the TV, the complainant initially purchased.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party, contending that the complainant approached the second opposite party and claimed the replacement of the television on 10-4-2023 after the one-year warranty coverage offered by the first opposite party from the date of purchase. According to the opposite parties, as a gesture of goodwill and considering that the production of the brand purchased by the complainant had ceased, they replaced the complainant's television with a new Redmi TV. This replacement was valued higher than the original TV purchased by the complainant. The complainant accepted the replacement and received the new television through his driver on May 2, 2023.
DW1, the service manager of the first opposing party, testified before this commission that they replaced the complainant's television with an old model TV.
Exhibit A4 proves that the opposite parties replaced the TV of the complainant with a Redmi TV having model number L32M6-RA manufactured in the year 2021.
The opposite parties replaced the complainant's television, purchased in 2022, with another TV manufactured in 2021. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties did not disclose the price of the replaced TV. The complainant has the right to replace the defective television at the same price and with the exact specifications. In this case, the opposite parties did not disclose the specifications of either the defective TV or the replaced TV, which is a Redmi Television. The first opposite party, the manufacturer of the Ozone Smart LED TV, is duty-bound to replace it with another television of the same price and specifications. Therefore, the first opposite party committed an unfair trade practice by replacing the complainant's television with an older model of another brand.
It is admitted that the delay in replacing the television was due to the scarcity of parts for the Ozone Smart LED TV. The first opposite party, the Ozone Smart LED TV manufacturer, is duty-bound to ensure an adequate supply of spare parts for their product in the market. The inordinate delay in replacing the defective TV amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Considering that the complainant is using the television and has not provided any evidence that the replaced television is defective, we believe that allowing compensation for the unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties will meet the ends of justice. In these circumstances, keeping in mind the salutary principles of the Consumer Protection Act, we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000 to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing in which the award amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Bill dated 10/04/2022 for the purchase of the TV
A2 - Copy of the legal notice dated 08/05/2023
A3 - Original postal receipts dated 09/05/2023
A4 - Photographs showing the details of the replaced TV
Witness from the Side of Opposite parties
DW1 - G.Vidhya
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Assistant Registrar
