IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE     30^th   DAY OF APRIL 2022

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

        Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

        Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.06/2019

Shailaja,

Manilal, Thekkekalluvila,

Poothakulam P.O.,

Kollam 691302.                                                                                       :         Complainant

(By Adv.P.K. Syamaladevi)

V/s

1.  Proprietor,

      Sen International,

      Station Road,

      Paravur, Kollam.

                                                          :          Opposite parties 

2.  Manager,

          Sansui Corporate Office,

          17^th floor,Mittal Court,

         C Wing, Nariman Point,

          Mumbai 400021

3.  Danasheelan,

           Manager,

         Sen International,

         Station Road,

          Paravur, Kollam.

         (Amended as per order dated 06.02.2020 in IA 126/19)

ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 1919.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          On 18.04.2016 Sri.Manilal, the deceased husband of the complainant had purchased a Sansui 40’ LED TV (with warranty No.LED TVS JX40FB11XAF 1108/5110284409043) from 1^st opposite party SEN INTERNATIONAL STATION ROAD, PARAVUR, KOLLAM  for Rs.33,00/-.  Since 6 months after its purchase, the TV was not functioning.  Even though the complainant had informed the 1^st opposite party regarding the malfunctioning of the said TV they didn’t respond to the same initially.  But she had continued his contact with 1^st opposite party nearby 50 times by spending auto charge Rs.120/- for each travel.  Upon his continuous demand the 1^st opposite party send a technician to the house of the complainant and examined the defective TV and who has taken the same to the 1^st opposite party shop by assuring the complainant that the same would be returned within one week after necessary repairs, but it was not returned till date.  Hence this complaint.

          The additional 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer and additional 3^rd opposite party is the manager of 1^st opposite party shop, SEN INTERNATIONAL.  According to the complainant the non-curable defect shown in the early stage of purchase shows that the TV is having manufacturing defect which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The above conduct of the opposite parties caused much mental agony apart from financial loss of the complainant.  Hence the complainant prays to pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace the alleged TV with a new good one of the same price and specification or to return Rs.33,000/-being the value of the TV with 12% interest from the date of purchase (18.04.2016) 2) and also to award Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation 3) to also to award of the proceedings.

Though notice was served on opposite parties 1 to 3 they have neither appeared before the commission nor filed any version.  Hence they were set exparte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked one document as Ext.A1(delivery chellan issued by SEN INTERNATIONAL dated 18.04.2016 for Rs.33,000/-) 

Heard the counsel for the complainant.

          The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 delivery chellan would establish the case of the complainant that her husband had purchased the alleged Sansui 40’ LED TV (with warranty No.LED TVS JX40FB11 XAF 1108/5110284409043) from 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.33,000/- on 18.04.2016 but the same became defective only within 6 months of its purchase.  Though the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party about 50 times by spending auto charge Rs.120/- for each travel they did not respond to get the TV repaired.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party send a technician to the house of the complainant and examined the TV and the same was taken to the 1^st opposite party shop by assuring the complainant that the TV would be returned defect free within one week after necessary repairs.  But the complainant did not get it repaired till date.

          According to the complainant as a Pravasy malayali her deceased husband purchased the alleged TV by spending Rs.33,000/- not for variety but for information, enjoyment as well as for an entertainment to his wife and children but the purpose of the purchase became in vain. 

          The complainant could not make use of the alleged TV even for one year.  Moreover due to the defective functioning of the alleged TV  the complainant and her children had to depend their neighbours even for watching TV and which caused severe mental agony apart from financial loss to the family of the complainant.  In view of the materials available on record it is clear that TV became defective within the warranty period.  So the opposite parties are liable to replace the same.

          Another allegation raised by the complainant is that the alleged TV is having manufacturing defect because the same became defective hardly after 6 months of its purchase and none of the opposite party taken any steps to repair the same even for a single time which itself would indicate that the alleged TV is having manufacturing defect.  In view of the materials available on record we hold that there exists deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3.

          In view of the materials on record we are of the view that the complaint has established prima facie that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 and that the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get a defect free new TV or its value as well as compensation for mental agony.  Points answered accordingly.

Point No.3   

          In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. 1^st opposite party is directed to return the invoice price Rs.33,000/- to the complainant or to substitute a new TV of the same value and specification within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
2. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony sustained to the complainant.
3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the above directions failing which the complainant is directed to realize Rs.33,000/- being the price of the TV plus Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest and costs Rs.5,000/- from opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.

  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 30^th  day of  April 2022.         

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

   E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                    STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1                        : delivery chellan issued by SEN INTERNATIONAL dated 18.04.2016

                                      for Rs.33,000/-

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil