KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 360/12
JUDGMENT DATED : 7.1.13
PRESENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. MEMBER
APPELLANT
U.K. Balachandran, S/o Chirukandan,
Arakkal house, P.O. Melur,(via) Palayad, Pin 670 661
Thalassery Taluk, Kannur District, Kerala State.
( Rep. by Sri. Adv. B.A. Krishna Kumar, amicuscuriae )
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Reliance Big T.V. Ltd.
Business Head Quarters, 4th floor,
Deerubhai Ambani, Knowledge City,
Navi Mumbai- 400 710
2. R & E Syndicate, Dealer,
Big T.V. Reliance, O.V. Road, Thalassery,
Pin- 670 101, Kannur District, Kerala State
(R1 Rep. by Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. MEMBER
This appeal prefers by the appellant/complainant in the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in C.C. No. 247/2011 dated. 29.12.2011. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties. This appeal prefers from the order that the forum below already allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. This appeal preferred by the complainant for enhancement of the amount ordered by the Forum below.
2. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellant/complainant (appointed by this Commission as amicuscuraie admitted that the complainant had
recharged for Rs. 150/- on July, 8, 2011 but the visuals are not available due to the bad signal and there was no relay transmission. The complaint was alleged for opposite party number one and the Opposite party assured that the technician will visit complainant’s house and rectified the defects within 45 years. But to the utter dismay to the complainant nobody turned up despite several reminders to the opposite party No. 2. The matter was informed to the second opposite party also. But the relay transmission of program not to be revived. But the first opposite party has been charging an amount from the recharge amount even though the defect was not rectified. O.P. No. 2 informed that the balance amount as on 4.8.2011 is Rs. 3/- only.
3. The Family of the complainant consisted of 5 members all of them are depending upon the T.V. for amusement for the news including the employment news etc. Due to the irresponsibility and callous attitude on the part of the opposite parties the complainant and his family members had suffered so much mental, physical and financial difficulties.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Forum below the first opposite party appeared and the second opposite party remained absent and later set exparte. The first opposite party had filed only affidavit and did not file any version. The document marked on the part of the complainant is Ext. A1 & A2. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation of the complainant.
5. For respondent/opposite party No. 1 the Advocate George Cherian appeared and argued. R2 called absent. There is no representation for the counsel for the appellant. The counsel argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the Forum already given specific direction to the first opposite party to make all arrangements for proper relay transmission in the situations no explanation was given and for in receipt of signals by the opposite parties. The lower Forum failed to consider the fact that the complainant was solely depending on the T.V. for news, employment opportunities, for entertainment and have purposefully deprived of service caused not only mental strain but also loss of opportunities to the next generation.
6. The Forum below ought to have awarded a higher amount since there is the apparent deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The Forum below ought to have issued an appropriate strictures to the opposite party since their act amount to unfair trade practice. The Lower Forum ought to have awarded the compensation on the basis of the mental agony and loss happened to the complainant.
7. The respondent’s counsel has represented that they did not file any appeal from the order passed by the forum below and they are ready to pay the compensation ordered by the Forum below; This commission heard in detail and perused the available evidence. The non appearance of the O.P2 and the non contests of the O.P. 1 is very serious. The complainant who purchased the T.V and installed the accessories not as a part and parcel of a just purchase of a good from the shop. He purchased his Big T.V and accessories for the continuous use as per the assurance given by the opposite party. It is unlike a person who purchased a chair or a table for his continuous use. The attitude of the opposite parties both in the Forum below and before this commission is seeing that they did not provide any after service after the sale of the Big TV and accessories to the complainant. The compensation by the Forum below is not on correct norms. The Forum below ordered only Rs.5,000/- as compensation. But the complainant who filed the complaint with a prayer to allow 20 lakhs rupees as compensation. As per the Consumer Protection Act the Forum below is having a pecuniary jurisdiction to award compensation up to Rs.20 lakhs. The complainant prayed for getting the maximum of 20lakhs rupees. It shows that the intention of the complainant is not genuine remedy. All are using the electronic media like T.V. and Computer etc for getting credible information. Non availability of this information and entertainments for a long period by the defect, the act of the equipments etc is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as per the Consumer Protection Act. In this case the complainant and Family who suffered some loss due to the non functioning of the T.V but it can not be believable that they suffered huge loss and sufferings due to non availability of the T.V. entertainment and news. No such instants or expenses explained in the complaint those who suffered due to the non availability of the T.V signals. Suppose the complainant and his family those who preferred to go for a journey and they did not get any prior information about the calamity or Harthal, or any such unrest in the road and subsequently the complainant’s family who suffered very huge loss including physical, mental and financial loss may be the reason for demanding huge amount as compensation. In this case mere deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party which suffered by the appellant. In news appeared in the newspaper that one lady who committed suicide due to the circumstances that the T.V. was not functioning, she did not see the regular T.V family Serial. These are the psychiatric issues. But in this case this complainant did not prove any loss sustained by him due to he and his family is not in a position to view the T.V. entertainments, news and employment news etc. The complainant has no such case. In this case it is seeing that the attitude of the opposite party is nothing but a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. They just sold out the Big T.V. and accessories to the complainant thereafter they neglected total customers. This practice is so unhealthy and against the fair trade prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act. It is necessary to stop this type of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In our country any company can introduce any project with any attractive offering for marketing the product or plans. Then after they are very easily withdrew from the field. This is one common practice in the state of Kerala, which is totally a Consumer State.
In the result, these are nothing but a cheating to the poor customers and it resulted E-waste dumping. This type of business adopted by ever somany companies and which marketed their products in our consumer state we are suffering the difficulty of the electronic waste problem. This Commission decide to modify the result portion of the order of the Forum below and enhancing the amount ordered by the Forum below. The Forum below ordered only Rs.5,000/- as a compensation. But this Commission directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000 as the compensation and interest at 15% from the date of the filing of the complainant till the date of the realization and also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost for proceedings to the complainant within 15days after the receipt of the copy of the judgment.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation with interest @15% from the date of the complaint till the realization of the order. It also ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings by the opposite parties to the complainant. This Commission warned the opposite parties against this type of unfair trade practice and also shall not be continued this unfair trade practice in future. This appeal is disposed in accordance with this direction.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
