By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

1.    The complaint in short is as follows:-

           On 30/09/2016 complainant purchased one Philips LED TV model 32 PFL 3230 worth Rs. 18,800/- from opposite party No.3 and they provided an invoice (receipt) No.3043 to complainant.  At the time of purchasing the TV, opposite party No.1 and 3 assured 5 years warranty for the above TV.   After 1 ½ years of its use the TV got dyfunct, complainant registered a complaint   through Philips   customer care as per complaint No.7736836665.   As per that complaint  one service person from  Philips service centre  came to complainant’s house  and  assured   to the complainant   that  they will replace  the panel  and button  of the TV.   Thereafter there was no reply from any of the opposite parties and after one year complainant again approached opposite party No.2.  But opposite party No.1 closed the complaint without redress the grievance of complainant.

2.       Again on July 2020, complainant again registered a complaint through the customer care of opposite party No.1 as per complaint No.200711103918.  Thereafter they informed the complainant that Rs. 5000/- was needed to repair the TV and for the further proceedings.  But complainant is not ready to give the amount for repairing the TV because the above said TV has warranty of 5 years from the date of purchase.  Hence opposite party No.1 closed that complaint also.

3.        Thereafter   also   complainant   was unable to use the TV and he filed a fresh petition on 13/08/2021  through the customer care of opposite party No.1 and they demanded  Rs.10,500/- for repairing the TV. In this manner complainant approached opposite party No.1   so many times within 3 years, but there was no steps taken by opposite parties to redress the grievance of complainant. Hence this complaint. There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Due to the act of opposite parties complainant suffered a lot.  Complainant is living 70 kilometres away from opposite party service centre. Hence he had spent a huge amount for travelling and for conducting case.  It is the duty of opposite parties to reimburse the complainant.

4.      The prayer of the complainant in the complaint is that, he is entitled to get Rs.25,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs. 6,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Thereafter he filed affidavit.  The  prayer of the complainant  in the affidavit is that, he is entitled to get Rs.60,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

5.       On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party No.1 and 2 and notice served on them and opposite party No.2 appeared before the Commission and filed version.  After receiving notice opposite party No.1 did not appear and did not file version.  Hence opposite party No.1 set exparte.  On 18/05/2022 complainant filed IA 370/2022 to implead the proprietor, Home Land Edappal as  opposite party No.3 and that petition allowed and impleaded  the above  shop as opposite party No.3.    Thereafter opposite party No.2 filed the address of   opposite party No.4, Radheyshyam, Service Department TPV Technology India and they submitted that all the matters relating to Philips electronics that means opposite party No.1 is now handling by opposite party No.4 in this case.  Thereafter complainant filed a petition on 27/09/2022 and  Commission impleaded the above company as   opposite party No.4 and issued notice to them.   Thereafter notice was issued to the opposite party No.3 and 4 and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission and filed version.   

6.      In their version opposite party No.2 stated that, they are the authorised service centre of Philips India limited and they are ready to settle the matter amicably. In their version they stated that, they got a fresh LED TV from the company and they are ready to hand over the new TV to complainant instead of the old TV and they humbly requested the Commission to direct the complainant to settle the matter by receiving the new TV.  They again stated that Philips India Limited the company does not exist now. So it is the only possible way to hand over the new TV to complainant instead of the TV mentioned in the complaint. On 27/09/2022 opposite party No.2 submitted before the Commission that they had provided a new TV to complainant on 22/04/2022 at complainant’s house and they have taken back the old TV from complainant’s house. It is the only possible way from their side to settle the matter because they are the service centre of Philips India Limited  and the mother company is not alive now.  So they are not liable.

7.          In their version of opposite party No.3 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that on 30/09/2016 complainant purchased Philips 80 cm TV worth Rs.18,800/- having 5 years warranty  and  V-guard stabilizer  worth Rs.1600/- from their shop. They again stated that complainant approached them for the defect caused to the TV and he demanded a new TV or the refund of the amount. Thereafter they informed about the complaint of the complainant to Philips Service Centre and the company. As per their request company handed over a new TV to complainant and taken back the old TV from his house.  Firstly complainant was fully satisfied with the above act of opposite parties and thereafter he filed a petition for getting compensation. Hence they are not liable to compensate the complainant.   

8.      In their version opposite party No.4 stated that they denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under.

They again stated that  they are the  world’s  leading  manufacturer of display panels and  they are the current  authorised licensee of  Philips Audio, Philips Video products  and  engaged in selling and distributing  TPV Technology products  and Philips branded  LED monitors  and LED TV’s.   They again stated that complainant as failed to produce any documents in its support which can establish its frivolous allegations against opposite party No.4. They admitted that complainant purchased above TV worth Rs 18,800/- on 30/09/2016. They again stated that a complaint call was registered by the complainant dated 11/07/2021 for breakdown on which the company’s technician visited the complainant’s place and reported for replacement of TV panel. They also informed the complainant that due to covid 19 situations and non availability of replacement model in the warehouse there would be some delay in service.  Complainant without considering the situation filed a suit before the Commission against the opposite parties.

9.        They again submitted that for the customer satisfaction,  they approached the complainant repeatedly to replace  his TV Model No 32PFL 3230 with model No. 32PFT4233S/94-CS free of cost  for which complainant later provided his  consent and  signed  a letter of settlement dated 22/04/2022 wherein  he agreed that  the TV is replaced  free of cost and further declared that he is fully satisfied and hence  forward  there exist no liabilities towards the opposite parties. Hence the subject matter was closed mutually and complainant is not entitled to claim anything in this regard. The complainant having malafide intention, deceived  the opposite parties by  continuing  this legal case and  even after getting  fully satisfied,  demanding  for  money/compensation and  causing harassment to opposite parties. Hence complaint may be dismissed.

10.        In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 30/09/2016.  Ext.A2 is the copy warranty card. Ext.A3 is the copy of the email communications.  Thereafter opposite party No.2, 3 and 4 filed affidavit and opposite party No.2 filed one document which is marked as Ext. B1.  Ext. B1 is the copy of Joint Memorandum of settlement between complainant and opposite party.

11.     Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents.  The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
2. If so, reliefs and cost

12.  Point No.1 & 2

        The case of the complainant is that, he purchased Philips TV on 30/09/2016 and it got dyfunct within the warranty period of 5 years and   opposite parties not ready to repair the TV   free of cost during the warranty period.  Ext. A1 document clearly reveals that complainant had purchased the TV on 30/09/2016 and he paid an amount of Rs. 18,800/- to opposite party No.3. All the opposite parties admit the same. Opposite party No.2 stated that they are the service centre and the parent company Philips India Limited does not exist now. Moreover from the first posting itself after their appearance they offered the settlement to replace the TV in complainant’s house with a new TV. But complainant was not ready for that at that time. Complainant filed this complaint on 18/09/2021.  Opposite party No.1 appeared before the Commission on the first posting of the complaint dated 01/11/2021 and  he offered   to give a new TV  to complainant. As per the direction of the Commission, opposite party No.2 provided a new TV to complainant and they taken back the old TV from complainant’s house on 21/04/2022. So we are on the opinion that the role of opposite party No.2 is over. Moreover they stated that there was a delay in handing over the TV due to covid pandemic during 2020-2021. So they were unable to give the TV to complainant and they made apology for the same. From the above statements, we are on the opinion that opposite party No.2 acted very well. They are only the service centre of Philips India Limited. Moreover they submitted before the Commission that the parent company Philips India Limited does not exist now and all the matters related with Philips India limited are now handling by another company TPV Technology India Private Limited. Opposite party No.2 provided address particulars of opposite party No.4. Hence we are on the opinion that opposite party No. 1 and 2 are not responsible to compensate the complainant.

13.      After scrutinising the complaint and versions of opposite party No.3, we are on the opinion that they did not take any steps to redress the grievance of complainant. They admitted that they sold the above TV to complainant and it had 5 years warranty. It is their duty to inform the complaint   before the respective authorities. From their version and affidavit there is nothing mentioned that they had taken steps to resolve the problem. The owner of opposite party No.3 shop stated in their version and affidavit that, he had approached the Philips Company and he taken steps to provide a new TV to complainant and he taken back the old TV from complainant's house.  But no documents produced by opposite party No.3 to prove his contention. As per the direction of Commission, opposite party No.2 provided a new TV to complainant. As per the contention of opposite party No.2 it is clear that the company Philips India Limited is not existing now. As per  the  version and affidavit of opposite party No.4  they admitted that   they are the company  TVP Technology group  is the current  authorised licensee of  Philips audio and Philips Video  products and  engaged in selling/distribution  of  TPV Technology Group’s products in India and Philips branded LED monitors  and LED TV’s.  So we are on the opinion that opposite party No.3 is not taken any steps to resolve the complaint of complainant. After settling the matter by opposite party No.2 and complainant,   opposite party No.3 intentionally taken the credit of settlement. Opposite party No.3 is the dealer of  Philips  products , hence  they are aware about the handing over of the company to opposite party No.4.They suppressed that fact.

14.   Opposite party No.4 submitted that they received the complaint for breakdown on 11/07/2021 and their technician visited complainant’s place and reported for replacement of TV panel. But due to covid 19 situation and non availability of replacement model in the warehouse there would be some delay in service. They again stated that after replacing the TV free of cost, complainant provided his consent and signed a letter of settlement on 22/04/2022. Moreover he declared that he is fully satisfied and hence forward there exist no liabilities towards the opposite parties. Hence the subject matter was closed mutually and complainant is not entitled to claim anything in this regard. In that aspect it is a true statement from opposite party No.4. But as per complainant’s case he approached opposite parties so many times and he provided the complaint number and date in his complaint. But opposite party No.4 did not file any document to prove their case. Moreover there was a delay for providing a new TV to complainant. Sometimes that delay may be caused due to the covid-19 pandemic situation in our country.

15.       The first part of the complaint was settled by giving a new TV to complainant.

 Regarding the deficiency in service there is a delay from the side of opposite party No.4. Opposite party No.3 did not take any step to settle the matter amicably. So there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.3 and 4. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3 and 4 as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.3 and 4 are deficient in service.

16.   We allow this complaint as follows:-

1. The opposite party No.4 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only)  to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.4 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
2. The opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

          If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.3 and 4 are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.

Dated this 8^th day of June, 2023.

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                          : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                        : Ext.A1to A3

Ext.A1 : Copy of retail invoice dated 30/09/2016. 

Ext.A2 : Copy warranty card.

Ext.A3 : Copy  of the  email communications. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                       : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                     : Ext. B1

Ext. B1 : Copy of  Joint Memorandum of settlement  between complainant  and

                opposite party.

CPR