Originally there was only 2 opposite parties. Subsequently as per order dated 10.07.19 in IA.177/19 the original 2nd opposite party was deleted and as per order dated 10.07.19 in IA.174/19 and additional 3rd opposite party was impleaded. The 1st opposite party and additional 3rd opposite party remained exparty. The 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed a detailed version raising the following contentions. Subsequent to the filing of the version by the 2nd opposite party IA.173/19 was filed on 10.07.19 and got deleted the 2nd opposite party. Therefore the contention of the 2nd opposite party need not be considered. As the 1st and additional 3rd opposite party remained exparty, exparty evidence was recorded. The complainant filed proof affidavit by re-iterating the averments in the complaint and also got marked Ext.A1 to A3 documents.
Perused the records.
The unchallenged averments in the complaint, proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 documents would establish the following facts. The complainant has purchased PHILIPS 43” UHD SMART LED TV from the 2nd opposite party shop at Bengaluru on 17.07.2016 by paying Rs.39,999/-. The said TV is having 3 years warranty. The said TV was brought to the native place of the complainant at Kollam and installed by the service personnel deputed by the additional 3rd opposite party. The said TV worked without any complaint for about 2 years and 2 months and there after the TV has become defective. The complainant has lodged a complaint at the 1st opposite party’s customer care centre. Within 2 days service personnel from the service centre of 1stopposite party at Kollam came over at the residence of the complainant and inspected the said TV and thereafter informed the complainant that the panel of the said TV is not working and has to replace the panel as the LED TV was on warranty period the complainant requested the additional 3rd opposite party to replace the faulty panel of the said TV. Inspite of repeated request additional 3rd opposite party has not made available a new panel nor repaired the TV. On 30.11.2018 an official from the 1st opposite party contacted the complainant and informed that new panel for the said TV is not available and they are ready to pay back 70% of the amount spend on purchasing the said TV. The complainant is not amenable for the same and he insisted 100% reimbursement. Though the complainant sent invoice and cancelled cheque copy and registered complaint number in e-mail to 1st opposite party, they have not responded till date.
In view of the materials discussed above it is crystal clear that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1 and additional opposite party No.3. The main prayer in the complaint is to replace the faulty panel board and installed a new panel board. But it is clear from the available materials that new panel is not available with the opposite parties. It is to be pointed out that the complainant has used the TV for about 2 years and 2 months.
In the circumstanced it is highly unfair to claim the entire price of the TV even if it has not been working. In the circumstance we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get 80% of the value of the TV or to replace the faulty panel board with a new one. The 2nd relief sought for is compensation to the tune of Rs.69,999/- as the professional loss, harassment, inconvenience and difficulty suffered by the complainant. As the LED TV purchased by paying the heavy price has become faulty and defective and remained not working, there is every chance for sustaining mental agony apart from financial loss. Furthermore the complainant has knocked the door of the 1st and additional 3rd opposite party on several occasions by sending e-mail complaint and registering the complaint in the customer care centre etc. but in vein. On that count also the complainant has sustained much mental agony and harassment. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation. But the claim of compensation in the relief portion of the complaint is highly excessive. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The complainant is also entitled to get reasonable costs.
In the result complaint stands allowed directing the opposite party No.1 and additional opposite party No.3 to pay 80% of the invoice value of the LED TV along with interest @9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.
The opposite party No.1 &additional opposite party No.3 are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings.
Opposite party No.1 and additional 3rd opposite party are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the above amount with interest @12% p.a except for costs from 1st opposite party and additional 3rd opposite party jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 31st day of December 2021.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext A1 : True copy of tax invoice
Ext A2 : True copy of cancelled cheque
Ext.A3 : True copy of e-mail communication
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
