D.O.F:07/09/2020

                                                                                                  D.O.O:10/11/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.No.109/2020

Dated this, the 10^th day of November 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Aneesh.E.M, aged 38 years,

S/o. K.T Andy,

R/at CPCRI Residential quarters

Chowki, Post: Kudlu,

Kasaragod Taluk                                                      : Complainant

                                                                                     And

1. Proprietor, Bismi Appliances

39/44, Koyenco House, West hill,

Kozhikode 673005,

2. Proprietor, Speed care,

1^st floor, Kaban Shopping Arcade,

Anebagilu, Nayaks Road, Kasaragod                  : Opposite Parties

3. Proprietor, TPV Technology (Philips)

India Pvt Ltd 8^th Floor, DLF 9-B, DLF Cyber City,

Sector 25, DLF Phase – 3, Gurgaon -122002

Hariyana.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ORDER

 SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

The complainant purchased an LED Television set manufactured by brand name Philips Company vide invoice No: 741078 Dt: 15/09/2016 from Opposite Party No:1 for  Rs. 21500/-.  The Opposite Party No:1 made the complainant to believe that TV has got vide service centre all over Kerala including Kasaragod.  The Opposite Party No:1 assured warranty of replacement for 5 years from the date of purchase free of cost.  During the lockdown period of March 2020 its speaker stopped working there was no sound and later noticed no picture also.  Only trembling sound from inside the TV set and saw that there is no display from the monitor.  This fact was duly informed to Opposite Party No:1 for immediate service since every family member was locked in due to covid -19.  The Opposite Party No: 2 directed the complainant to get the TV set to their shop at Kozhikode.  So the TV set was taken to Opposite Parties showroom.  After examination Opposite Party No:2 informed that TV requires replacement and it is not repairable, as the problem relates to manufacturing defect.  The Opposite Party No: 1 further informed that the original Philips India stopped its production and Opposite Party No: 2 took over management of Philips but though TV set covered by valid warranty Opposite Party No:2 neither replaced no repaired the set.  The complainant requested for refund of its price paid less any depreciation charges for use of certain period but Opposite Party No: 2 refused both option.  Thus the complainant is compelled to take TV to home.  The complainant contacted the service centre at Kasaragod and their office is found closed.  The complainant made online search and came to know that Philips Company is trying to make a comeback with Television range in to the Indian market after one year. The company was partnered with Dixon technologies for local assembly for Philips range of TV as seen in their advertisement.  The technologies claim as largest manufactures of monitors and LED TV.  Due to the non co-operation of Opposite Parties the complainant suffered huge monitory loss, mental strain and agony for which complainant is seeking refund of the price of the TV set of Rs. 21,500/- with compensation and cost.   

            The Opposite Party No: 2 filed version stating that the petition is false frivolous and not maintainable in law.  The complainant admitted the purchase of the TV set by the complainant from Opposite Party No:1.  But he denied the promise made that they have got vide service centre network over Kerala including Kasaragod.  It is further stated that Opposite Parties not assured warranty or replacement for a period of five years from the date of purchase.  The Opposite Party No: 2 further states that the contentions in the complainant that during lockdown period the speaker of TV stopped and there was no sound and later noticed no picture also and complainant heard only trembling sound from inside TV set etc are utter falsehood and denied.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No:2 and there is no unfair trade practice also.  According to Opposite Party No: 2 he is an unnecessary party and have no connection with this complaint. The intention of the complainant is to grab money and thereby abuse the process of law.  Therefore the petition against Opposite Party No:2 may be dismissed with compensation and cost.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext A1 and A2. 

The issues raised for the consideration are

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. If so what is the relief?

For convenience issue No:1 to 3 can be discussed together.

The case of the complainant Sri. Aneesh is that he purchased an LED Television set manufactured by Philips company for Rs. 21,500/- on 15/09/2016 from Opposite Party No: 1. The original invoice is produced by the complainant which is marked as Ext A1 .The Opposite Party No: 1 offered service centre at Kasaragod and assured five years warranty for the TV set.The warranty card is produced which is marked as Ext A2.The grievance of the complainant is that during lock down period of March 2020, the speaker of the TV stopped working there was no sound and little later noticed no picture also.Only trembling sound from inside the TV set and the fact was duly informed to the Opposite Party No:1 for immediate service and repair.Since every family member were locked in due to covid 19.As per the direction of Opposite Party No:2 the complainant took the TV set to Kozhikode, after examination the technician informed that the problem relates to manufacturing defect,and informed that the original Philips India stopped production and Opposite Party No:2 took over management of Philips. Through TV set covered by valid warranty, the Opposite Party No: 2 is helpless in replacing the TV bearing huge costs.He was not ready for refund of price also.As a consumer, the complainant is entitled to get his TV set repaired by Opposite Parties during warranty period.The complainant is not liable to suffer if the company stopped its production.Ext A1 and A2 proves the purchase of the Television set and offer made regarding warranty.In the absence of rebuttal evidence complainants case stands proved.After spending Rs. 21,500, the complainant could use the TV set only for few months. The Opposite Parties failed to repair or replace the TV set during warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of them.Which caused huge loss and mental agony to the complainant.Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation from Opposite Parties.The complainant seeking for refund of the price of the TV set with compensation and cost.in the absence of contra evidence we holds that refund of the price of the TV set with compensation and cost will reduce the loss and agony of the complainant.

Therefore the complaint is allowed directing Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 21,500/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand Five hundred only) with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).

The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this judgement.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Retail invoice

A2- Warranty card

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/