IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No.189/2020 (filed on 17/11/2020)
Petitioner : Anil B. Panicker, Kidarathil House,
Nattasserry, Kottayam – 686006.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Reliance Retail Limitted, Reliance
Digital, Ground & First Floor, Nabeesa Shopping Complex, Kottayam, S.H. Mount P.O, Pin – 686006
(Adv. Nithin M. Koshy)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follows,
The LED TV used by the complainant at his residence became faulty. The complainant approached the opposite party for rectifying the defects within the warranty period. The opposite party did not care to rectify the defect of the TV. Due to this the online study of the daughter of the complainant was adversely affected. Hence, this complaint is filed for getting a new TV and compensation for the mental agony and sufferings.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version. As per the version of the opposite party, the complainant had purchased a Reconnect TV from the opposite party on 17-04-2019 for an amount of Rs.9,990/-, with two year warranty. The complainant had also purchased three year extended warranty from the opposite party under My Res Q plan for an amount of Rs.3,599/- with a period of coverage from 17-04-2021 to 16-04-2024. The complainant had reported the defect of the TV during the warranty period, and the complainant was registered with the authorized service centre. The authorized service personnel visited the house of the complainant and inspected the TV. On inspection it was found that LED panel of the television got defective and needs to be replaced. An order for the LED panel was placed, and due to Covid-19 situation there occurred a delay in transit of the spare parts. On receipt of the spare parts, the service person from the authorized service centre visited the house of the complainant and replaced the LED panel free of cost. The delay was occurred due to the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, and not due to any willful act on the part of the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant was continuously absent from the proceedings in spite of repeated notice from the commission. The documents filed along with the complaint were marked as Exhibits A1 To A3.
The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked document exhibit B1.
On the basis of the complaint and version of the opposite party and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
1). Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party,
2). If so what are the reliefs and costs.
Point No.1 and 2
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant had purchased a Reconnect TV from the opposite party on 17-04-2019 for an amount of Rs.9,990/-. The complainant had also purchased extended warranty for 3 years from the opposite party under My Res Q plan for an amount of Rs.3,599/- with coverage for the period from 17-04-2021 to 16-04-2024.
The TV became defective and the complainant registered a complaint on 16-11-2020. Exhibit A1 is the bill dated 19.04.2019 issued by the opposite party for the purchase of the Reconnect TV for a total amount of Rs.12,869/- including the price of TV Rs.9,990/- and Rs.3599 for 3 year extended warranty. Exhibit A2 is the message received for the service request; Exhibit A2 shows that the service request has been registered with No:5041222912 on 16-11-2020. Exhibit A3 is the copy of the extended warranty certificate under My Res Q plan showing the extended warranty period from 17-04-2021 to 16-04-2024.
Exhibit B1 is the job sheet dated 14-12-2020 marked by the opposite party. Exhibit B1 shows that the panel is replaced and complainant certifies that he is satisfied with the opposite party. Both the complainant and service personal seen signed in the document.
From the above discussed evidence it is clear that the opposite party rectified the defect of the Television on 14-12-2020. The complainant failed to produce any evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence point No.1 and 2 are found in favor of the opposite party. The case is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of August, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
By Order
Assistant Registrar
