Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/124/2021

BIJESH.P - Complainant(s)

Versus

PITTAPPILLIL AGENCIES - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB: PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Tuesday 30^th day of January 2024

CC.124/2021

Complainant

Bijesh. P,

Pulparambil (HO),

Kuttikattoor (PO),

Kozhikode -673008.

Opposite Parties

1.           Pittappillil Agencies,

Roshini Arcade,

Near Midac Dental Clinic,

Rarichan Road, JN,

Mini Bypass road,Eranhipalam,

Kozhikode – 673006.

2.           LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd,

    Door No. 24/1598/13, 1^st floor,

     Thaondayad,

     Kozhikode – 673 017.

                                                                           ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

 

            This is a complaint filed Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 22/08/2018 the complainant purchased HI-FI system OK 55 sound system of LG Company paying Rs. 19,499/- from the showroom of the first opposite party. The product was having one year warranty. The complainant availed two year extended warranty by paying Rs. 2,000/- to the first opposite party. On the next day of the purchase, the sound system became defective and the service personnel from the LG service centre came and inspected the system and replaced the same with a new one. But after one month, the replaced sound system started malfunctioning and that was replaced with a new one of the same model on 18/09/2018. But after one week, the system stopped working and when this was informed to the first opposite party on 2/10/2018, they informed that nothing could be done. On 23/10/2018 the complainant reported in the showroom of the first opposite party with the defective sound system and when people assembled there hearing thetalk, they handed over another sound system for temporary use to the complainant and assured that they would take up the matter with the second opposite party.

3. Since there was no response from the opposite parties even after 2 months, in January 2019 he went to the showroom of the first opposite party with his family members carrying the sound system provided to him for temporary use, which ensued a wordy altercation. Then the first opposite party gave him a new sound system and stated that there would not be any further replacement or repairs in case of any complaint. Bill was also not issued.
4. After 3 months, the sound system again became faulty and in May 2019 the complainant reported in the showroom of the first opposite party, who told that nothing could be done and insulted him. The complaint occurred during warranty period. The complainant was put to gross mental agony, besides monetary loss due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for refund of the purchase price along with interest.
5. The opposite parties were set ex-parte
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 were marked.
8. Heard.   
9. Point No 1:    PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Exts A1 and A2 are the invoices dated 22/08/2018, Ext A3 is the job sheet and Ext A4 is the copy of the delivery challan dated 23/10/2018. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service stands proved through the testimony of  PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 .
10. The main prayer is for the refund of the purchase price. It may be noted that to establish the claim for total replacement by a new product or refund of the purchase price, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert that the product suffers from any inherent manufacturing defect. Unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the opposite parties would be limited to the removal of the defect and /or replacement of the parts. Their obligation under warranty is only to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, there is absolutely nothing to show that the sound system is having any manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to place on record any technical /expert report to show that the sound system is having any such defect. Therefore, the prayer for refund of the price is not allowable in this case.
11. However, it is in evidence that the complaint to the product arose during the warranty period and there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the same and it amounts to gross deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get the sound system repaired under the warranty. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has resulted in gross mental agony and hardship to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
12. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

a)  CC.124/2021 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair/service the sound system (HI-FI system OK 55 sound system of LG Company) of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charge for such repair /service.   

c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered.

d) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the   receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.5,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order  till actual payment.

e)  No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30^th day of January, 2024.

 

 

Date of Filing: 18.08.2022 

 

           sd/-                                                        sd/-                                                  sd/-

       PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                        MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1  -     Invoice dated 22/08/2018

Ext A2  -     Invoice dated 22/08/2018

Ext A3  -     Job sheet

Ext A4  -    Copy of the delivery challan dated 23/10/2018.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -     Bijesh. P (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite party

 Nil

 

 

         sd/-                                                         sd/-                                                       sd/-

       PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                        MEMBER

 

True copy,

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                      sd/-                                                   

                                                                                                                Assistant Registrar