IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 23rd day of October, 2020
Filed on 05.10.2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.269/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Girish. T.D 1. Proprietor
S/o Damodaran Angel Agencies
Thayyil Veedu South of Vazhichery Bridge
Pulimkunnu.P.O, Kannadi Alappuzha-1
Alappuzha-1
(Adv.P.S.Anaghan) 2. Thozhiba Pvt. Ltd,
Corporate Office,
3rd Floor Building No.10B
DLF Cyber City, Girinagar-122002 (Adv.T.G.Sanalkumar)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
This is a consumer Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-
On 7/5/2014 the complainant reached the 1st opposite party shop to buy a LED TV and there the complainant inquired about what he had seen on various televisions and then as per the directions of the 1st opposite party the complainant had purchased THOSHIBA LED TV having price of Rs.24,500/-. The 1st opposite party made believe the complainant that the 2nd opposite party offered warranty for 3 years to the said TV
and thereby the complainant purchased the said TV and issued a warranty card signed and sealed by the 1st opposite party issued by the 2nd opposite party.
A few days after the purchase of the said TV it was disturbed to see the picture on the TV due to an abnormal line mark on the TV screen. When the complainant informed the said defect to the 1st opposite party the service engineers of the 2nd opposite party had examined the TV in question and went back by saying that the said defects will be rectified. But the said defects was not rectified. Thereafter when the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party it was informed to register a complaint through Toll Free Number, but the complainant was unable to do so despite repeated attempts and the complainant was rushed again to the 1st opposite party. But the opposite parties deceived the complainant by not curing the defects of the TV in question and then the same became completely inoperative. The complainant has been purchased the said TV only by believing the words of the 1st opposite party who has convinced the complainant that the said the TV covered 3 years warranty, but the TV in question has become completely inactive before the expiration of 3 years warranty period ie, 7/5/2017. Therefore a complaint was registered as SR51007563, 18/4/2017. The above acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in
service on their part. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 24,500/-, the price of the TV in question and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony sustained by the complainant.
2. The 1st opposite party filed version by alleging following contentions:-
It is true that on7/5/2014 the complainant had purchased a Thoshiba LED TV from 1st opposite party. On 11/5/2017 the complainant reached to the shop and intimated the complaint regarding the display of the said TV and registered the said complaint in Thoshiba Toll Free as complainant No.SR 510007563. Ofcourse the 2nd opposite party offered 3 years warranty to the TV in question, but the complainant had intimated the defect of the TV in question beyond the period of warranty. Therefore the 2nd opposite party informed that they cannot provide warranty service to the TV in question. The 1st opposite party may be exonerated from the complaint since the 2nd opposite party give services directly to the customers after sales of the goods and the 2nd opposite party only is liable in this regard.
3. In response to the complainant the 2nd opposite party filed version as follows:-
The complaint is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of process of law. It has been made to injure the interest and reputation of 2nd opposite party and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed as per Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The complainant has purchased a Thoshiba LED TV model No. 32P2305ZE having serial No.E12X14H01561K1 on 7/5/2014 from the 1st opposite party, who is one of the several retailers of the product s of 2nd opposite party. The complainant requested for the installation of the LED TV on 16/7/2014 and 2nd opposite party has completed the installation on the same day itself. The opposite party has provided a warranty period of 3 years and the opposite party cannot be held liable for the claims, since the claims are falling outside the warranty terms. The complainant has registered a complaint regarding the said LED TV on11/5/2017 through the customer care call centre of the opposite party. After registering the complaint, the service engineer from the 1st opposite party has visited the complainant’s residence for checking the defect. Upon examination, the service engineers noticed that the warranty period of the LED was expired even before the complaint was registered. Therefore he informed the complainant that it can be repaired only through payment of cash, as the warranty has expired. But the complainant refused to pay the cash and the complainant needed to repair the LED free of cost. The complainant demanding free of cost repair on the basis of false and frivolous date of registration of the complaint documents. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. In view of the above pleadings the points came up for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund Rs.24,500/- the price of the TV in question?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite parties?
4. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents. Opposite parties are adduced no oral as well as documentary evidence on their part. Heard counsel for the complainant and 1st opposite party.
5. Point No.1 to 3:-
Admittedly PW1, the complainant had purchased Thoshiba LED TV from 1st opposite party on 7/5/2014 having 3 years warranty. It is indicated from Ext.A1 and A2. According to the complainant the TV in question has become defective within the period of warranty offered by the opposite parties. But both the opposite parties were contented that the
complainant had informed and registered a complaint regarding the defect of the TV in question beyond the time limit stipulated as warranty period. From the averments in the complaint as well as in the chief affidavit the complainant categorically stated that the defects to the TV in question was occurred within the period of warranty and he had informed that on 18/4/2017 through the 2nd opposite parties Toll Free Number as registration No. SR51007563. When the opposite party put a suggestion to PW1 while he was cross examined by the opposite party, that more over in re examination of PW1 he also asserted that it is to be taken the necessary steps for proving the date of the registration of the complaint through Toll Free number. Further the complainant has taken steps against 2nd opposite party for producing the details of complaint registered by the complainant regarding the defects to the TV in question, since the mobile phone and its sim card were lost from his custody. Accordingly as per order in IA NO.126/18 this Commission had directed the 2nd opposite party to produce the said details. Even though sufficient opportunity has been given to the 2nd opposite party they had not produced the said details and affidavit as directed by the Commission. Therefore we accept the averments in the complaint regarding the date of registration pertaining to the defect of the TV in question with the observation that adverse inference to be drawn against the 2nd opposite party while
evaluating evidence in this case. Moreover on verification it was not seen along with the version of 2nd opposite party the documents annexed including the job card and copy of screen shot with respect to the said complaint as averred in the version. In the above circumstance we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However as the complainant has used the TV for at least 3 years he is not entitled to get the entire cost of the TV. Complainant has also sought for compensation for the mental agony. In view of the prayer 1 and 2 in the complaint we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as loss caused to the complainant for nor repairing the defective TV and also as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant in this regard. Points answered accordingly.
6. Point No.4
In the result complaint stands allowed in part in following terms:-
1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for not curing the defects of the TV set and also as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complaint.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) to the complainant as costs of the proceedings.
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as cost for the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with cost Rs.3000/- from the opposite party1 and 2 and from their assets.
The said order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 23rd day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Girish( Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Retail Invoice dtd.7/5/2014
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
