By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows: -
1. The complainant purchased an LED TV of Haier company on 20/05/2017 with two years replacement guaranty and five years’ service warranty. The company and the first and third opposite parties had assured warranty. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 25,241/- as price of the product to the first opposite party. Subsequently after few months the TV began to show signs of defects like emitting strange rays from all four corners of the display screen. The complainant immediately contacted the first opposite party and a complaint was registered on 08/15/2019 as CA 20190508110048. Consequently, a technician from fourth opposite party inspected the appliance and found fault with the panel board. The service person offered to repair the TV provided it is taken to the service center of the fourth opposite party at Malappuram. But the fourth opposite party denied to take the TV to his service center. Hence the complainant contacted the second opposite party but he failed to connect him and on repeated calls a personal visit to the first opposite party was made and the TV was finally taken to the service center of fourth opposite party on 10/05/2019. Since the fourth opposite party did not give back repaired TV within a reasonable time, the complainant again contacted second opposite party and directly demanded the first opposite party to repair TV promptly. Consequently, the TV was given back to complainant on 24/05/2019.
2. But subsequent to the repair work of TV, it did not function properly and lengthy lines were appeared on the display screen. The technician from the fourth opposite party had no proper explanation for the defects but consoled the complainant with evasive answer that it was due to the presence of dust particles inside the device and the error is only temporary. Hence, the complainant was compelled to give service charges for his mere inspection. Dissatisfied with the negligent act of the opposite party, the complainant complained to the first and second opposite parties about defects on the same day and the first opposite party had assured that the fourth opposite party will repair the errors within no time. The above complaint was transferred to the customer care of the hair appliances. Even then the technician advanced lame excuses and sought time to repair the appliances. The complainant continuously demanded for expeditious service. The first and fourth opposite parties give evasive answers and unreasonably extended time for providing services. Meanwhile, because of the latches on the part of first and second opposite parties in repairing TV on time, the audio and video function of TV also were interrupted.
3. On 11/11/2019 the first opposite party informed the complainant that the complaint has been re-registered as CA 201911111088806 and his grievances will be addressed soon. But strangely the third opposite party raised a hyper technical objection that the complainant was registered only after the period of warranty and so he cannot offer any more services as per the norms of warranty. The complainant tried his level best to convince the opposite parties that the defect was reported on the very same day. The TV was returned from the service center after repairing the first complaint and the defect was developed during the validity period of warranty while the TV was in the above said service center. Even then the opposite parties refused to provide service to the complainant without any reason.
4. The complainant reiterate that the warranty period was expired during the time when the TV was under repair in the said service center of the opposite parties. The delay for repairing the device was caused solely due to the attitude of the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that he had informed the opposite parties about the defects as soon as the TV was brought back after repair work for the first time. The complainant had specifically put to the notice of the opposite parties that the error was developed during the service of the TV in the service center of the opposite party at Malappuram and urgent demand for repair was made on the very same day the TV was brought from the opposite party service center. The complainant submit that the opposite parties intentionally protracted the service with ulterior motive of lagging warranty period. Hence, it is submitted that due to unjust denial of service to the complainant, had made his TV useless resulting heavy financial loss to the compliant. In addition to the loss caused to him on account of physical in conveniences and mental strain following the disputes. Hence complainant alleges deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and there by claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party as compensation.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version. Opposite party No.4 did not appear.
6. The first opposite party field version denying the entire averments and allegations. The opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased the said TV from the first opposite party on 20/05/2017 which is manufactured by the second opposite party. But the averment that the third opposite party is the branch of the first opposite party is not correct. The opposite party admitted that the cost of the TV was Rs.25,241/- . It is further admitted that there were some issues to the TV after the purchase and the complainant complained the same to the first opposite party on 08/05/2019 and the complaint was registered as CA2019058110048. As per the complaint the fourth opposite party technician inspected the TV but the subsequent averments in the complaint are not aware to the first opposite party and so denied. The averment in the complaint that there was defect to the panel of the TV and thereby resulted defect to display and strange rays that TV has to be taken to the fourth opposite party that the TV has to be shifted to the fourth opposite party that the fourth opposite party was not prepared to take the TV to the fourth opposite party . That the complainant accordingly approached the second opposite party that due to inability to contact the second opposite party approached the first opposite party are not known to the first opposite party. the first opposite party submitted that whenever the complainant approached the first opposite party then the first opposite party had extended all the cooperation and all help as stated in the complaint. But the averment that the complainant had taken the TV to the fourth opposite party that the fourth opposite party did not return TV after rectification of defect in due time that the complainant had called the second opposite party etc. are denied by the first opposite party It is also not known to the first opposite party that the TV was returned to the complainant on 24/05/2019.
7. The first opposite party denied the averment that the TV repaired is not working properly that there is long lengthy line on screen that the fourth opposite party technician did not give proper reply that there was dust inside the TV and that caused defect to the TV that the technician of the fourth opposite party collected service charge from the complainant etc. The opposite party submitted that accept the fact that the TV was sold by the first opposite party, all the other allegations are false and so denied. The first opposite party had extended all the services including after sales service. The first opposite party never evaded the complainant or there was no occasion of not giving proper answers to the enquiry of the complainant. The allegation that due to default from the side of first and second opposite parties the TV became defective is baseless. The complainant is liable to prove the allegation of negligence and deficiency from the side of first opposite party.
8. The opposite party denied the averments in the complaint that the third opposite party informed the complainant that the warranty period had expired at the time of registering the complaint and that the defect of TV cannot be rectified under warranty condition etc. The allegation of the complainant is a blatant one and which is not specific and those are against all the opposite parties without any evidence. Hence the submission of the first opposite party is that the opposite party incorporate in the complaint without any reason and material. There is no deficiency in service from the side of first opposite party and there is no specific allegation in the complaint also. The opposite party submitted that they extended their support by contacting customer care on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has produced documents regarding the warranty of the product and so the warranty conditions can be inferred from the document. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the first opposite party.
9. The hair appliance India Limited, the second and third opposite parties filed version denying the allegation and averments in the complaint. It is submitted that the complaint is an abuse of process of the court and law in as much as it does not disclose any cause of action which warrants any adjudication by the commission and the complaint does not revealed grievance against the opposite parties and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite parties. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has not disclosed all the relevant facts which are necessary for adjudication of complaint against the opposite parties. The complainant approached the commission with no clean hands and that score also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. The opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint and submitted that an irreparable defects that cannot be fixed since the complainant has not produced any report of independent technician / engineer to support the same which is a primary requirement as per the judicial pronouncement of National Commission and Supreme Court of India .
11. The opposite party did not dispute the purchase of the product from the first opposite party on 20/05/2017. The opposite party had provided efficient “after sale service” for all its products to complete satisfaction of its customers and customer interest is always paramount for the answering opposite parties. It is submitted that the complainant as initially not lodged any complaint with the opposite parties and he only approached the opposite parties after when the warranty period of the said product has been expired despite all these the opposite party was ready to repair the product provided the complainant would bear the service cost as the product warranty has been expired. The opposite parties reiterated that they always tend to provide a good after sale service to its customers and as per the terms of warranty the opposite party is always ready to repair the said product with full of the satisfaction of the complainant.
12. The opposite party submitted that the warranty of the said products was 12 months only and he has lodged his first complaint on 08/05/2019 as per his own admission and averments made in the complaint which clearly reveals that the product warranty has already been expired as he purchased the product on 20/05/2017. The opposite party further submitted that despite the fact the warranty of the product has expired they are ready to repair the said product with full of satisfaction of the complainant provided he pay the service cost. it is further submitted that the opposite party has given the repair cost estimate thrice to the complainant but the complainant declined for the reason best known to him. The submission of the opposite party is that the product is not under the warranty and they cannot provide services or repair the product free of cost as per policy and so the present complaint be dismissed with cost.
13. The complainant and the first opposite party filed affidavits. The complainant filed documents and they are marked as Ext. A1 to A11. Except first opposite party no other opposite parties filed affidavit. No document is marked on the side of opposite parties. Ext A1 is copy of retail invoice dated 20/05/2017. Ext. A2 is copy of warranty card. Ext.A3 is copy of receipt dated 10/05/2019 issued by promise electronics for Rs.300/-. Ext. A4 is copy of receipt issued by promise electronics dated 24/05/2019 for Rs.880/-. Ext. A5 series is copy of lawyer notice and postal acknowledgment. Ext A6 is copy of postal article returned from the hair stating left without address. Ext A7 is postal acknowledgement received from hair palaraivattom Ernakulum. Ex.t A8 is postal acknowledgment received from 4th opposite party. Ext. A9 is copy of printed version of communication with toll free number of the hair company. Ext. A10 is certificate issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A11 is bill issued by the first opposite party for the purchase of new TV for Rs.27900/- dated 09/10/2021.
14. Heard complainant and opposite parties paused affidavit documents. The following points arise for consideration
1) Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2) Relief and cost ?
15. Point No.1 and 2
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased LED TV hair from the first opposite party on 20/05/2017 worth Rs.25,241/. The complainant submitted that he purchased the TV under the impression that the TV has got 2 years warranty. The complainant submitted that the TV became defective on 08/05/2019 and duly informed the first opposite party and a complainant was registered as CA 20190508110048 through the first opposite party. As a result, one of the technicians of the fourth opposite party came to the complainant, inspected the defective TV and directed to take the defective TV to the service center of the fourth opposite party. The complainant duly took the TV to the fourth opposite party and the fourth opposite party returned the TV after considerable delay to the complainant. But the complainant could see the defect of the TV was not duly rectified. Then again, he contacted the first opposite party and the manufacturer-the second opposite party and also made telephonic call and thereby registered complaint again. At the time of telephone call, it was assured the TV has got warranty of two years. But the opposite parties did not admit the same and not rectified the defect of the product. Moreover the service people of the fourth opposite party collected service charges from the complainant. Now the complainant prays for replacement of the defective TV and compensation of 1,50,000/-rupees.
16. Except the first opposite party, no other opposite parties filed affidavit before the commission. The first opposite party filed version as well as affidavit. The first opposite party contended that there is no specific allegation against the first opposite party and they had provided sufficient service to complainant then and there. In addition to that the complainant produced a document which is marked as Ext. A10 reveals that the product has got two-year warranty that of comprehensive warranty and which was provided as per the instructions given by executive of global agencies, the authorized distributors of hair company LED. It can neb seen that there is no contra evidence against the contention of the complainant.
17. It can be seen that the complainant registered a complaint during the valid warranty period of 2 years. But, though the fourth opposite party attend the defect of the TV, could not rectify duly as required by the complainant. Hence there was complaint from the side of complainant against the TV during the warranty period. The defect is being alleged against the product then it is the liability of the manufacturer of the product to rectify the complaint. In this complaint instead of rectifying the defect the manufacturer remained exparte in the commission proceedings as per the statute. Hence there is no evidence from the side manufacturer before this commission. On the other hand, the complainant produced Ext. A1 to A11 to establish the averments in the complaint. Ex.t A1 shows that he purchased the product for Rs.25,241/-. Ext. A3 and A4 shows that the service center collected service cost from the complainant. Ex.t A5 reveals that the complainant issued due notice to the opposite parties regarding his grievance. The complainant produced Ex.t A9 with copy of CD regarding the conversation made with service call center of the manufacturer. There is specific admission regarding the warranty period. The complainant further produced Ext. A11 to show that he purchased a new TV on 09/10/2021 worth Rs.27,900/-. Now it can be seen that the complainant could establish his case through the documents Ex.t A1 to A11. There is no contra evidence against the case of complainant. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of second and third opposite parties.
18. The complainant prays for the replacement of the product and also compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. But the complainant produced Ext.A11 to show that he has purchased a new TV at present. So, the question of replacement does not arise. It will be proper to direct the manufacturer to refund the cost of the product to the complainant i.e., 25,241/-. The complainant is also entitled reasonable amount as compensation. But there is no basis for the claim of rupees 1,50,000/- as compensation. Hence we allow Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hereby caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled cost of Rs.5000/-.
19. In the light of above facts and circumstances, we allow this complaint as follows: -
- The second and third opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of the TV i.e. Rs.25,241/- to the complainant.
- The second and third opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony sustained by the complainant.
- The second and third opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
The second and third opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled interest for the above said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A11
Ext.A1: Copy of retail invoice dated 20/05/2017.
Ext.A2: Copy of warranty card.
Ext A3: Copy of receipt dated 10/05/2019 issued by promise electronics for Rs.300/-.
Ext A4: Copy of receipt issued by promise electronics dated 24/05/2019 for Rs.880/-.
Ext A5: Series is copy of lawyer notice and postal acknowledgment.
Ext.A6: Copy of postal article returned from the hair stating left without address.
Ext.A7: Postal acknowledgement received from hair palaraivattom Ernakulum.
Ext.A8: Postal acknowledgment received from 4th opposite party.
Ext.A9: Copy of printed version of communication with toll free number of the hair
company.
Ext.A10: Certificate issued by the first opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A11: Bill issued by the first opposite party for the purchase of new TV for
Rs.27,900/- dated 09/10/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
