D.O.F:22/08/2022

                                                                                                  D.O.O:29/12/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    KASARAGOD

CC.No.198/2022

Dated this, the 29^th day of December 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Chandran Nair, 60 years,

F/o Vaishak,

Madhavam House,

Tholiyat, POST Kuttikol                                                       :  Complainant

Chengala VIA,

Kasaragod- 671 541

(Adv: T.C Narayanan)                                                        

And

1. Reliance Retail Ltd,

Second Floor, Pandeshwar Road,

Mangalore 575 001

2. Reliance Retail Ltd,

No.62/2, RIL Building,                                             : Opposite Parties

Richmond Road, Banglore- 560 025

3. L G Electronics India Pvt Ltd,

Corporate office, Plot No. 51,

Near Udyog Viha, Surajpur Kasna Road,

Greater Noida, 201 310

ORDER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

The complaint is filed under section 35 of consumer protection act 2019.

The fact in brief of this case  is that the complainant’s son purchased a LG 50 H UHD SMART LED TV for the benefit of the complainant, from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.50,911/- on 15.05.2022. The opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the product. The TV had warranty of 2 years. The above TV stopped functioning on 07.08.2022 and the complainant registered a complaint before the customer care on 08.08.2022. But there was no follow up from the side of the opposite parties . The Opposite parties informed that complaint was entrusted to one WEATHER KOOL.  The complainant made several calls to the opposite parties. But they failed to respond properly and to cure the defects of the TV.  At last a service technician visited the complainant and informed that the TV’s displays is needed to be replaced.  Thereafter on 8.8.2022 the opposite parties informed the complainant that they are not able to rectify the TV and they cancelled the request of the complainant without any charges.  The TV supplied by the opposite party is defective one and due to this complainant suffered monitory loss and mental agony.  Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The notice to the opposite party duly served but they remained absent. Their names were called and set ex parte.

The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Ext.A1 and A2 series.  Ext.A1 and is the Delivery note No.7026010809 dtd.15.5.2022 issued by opposite party No.1. Ext.A2 series are copies of WhatsApp messages in between complainant and the opposite parties.

 Based on the pleadings and documents in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.

1.    Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties

2.    If so, what is the relief ?

The specific case of the complainant is that they purchased an LED TV from the opposite parties paying Rs.50,911/- but the above TV stopped functioning within a short period.  The opposite parties failed to cure the defects in spite of immediate registering of complaint.  Even though the TV had warranty for 2 years they did not care to replace the TV. This is a clear case of service deficiency and unfair trade practice.  The TV was purchased on 15.05.2022 and it stopped functioning on 07.08.2022.  Even though the complaint was registered on 8.8.2022 the opposite parties could not attend for service in time.  A service technician of the opposite parties who inspected the TV informed the complainant that TV’s display is needed to be replaced.  But after a few weeks the opposite parties informed the complainant that TV cannot be rectified.  This shows that the TV has serious defects. The opposite parties cancelled the request of the complainant without any action.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monitory loss. Therefore the complainant is entitled to replacement of the TV and refund of the amount.  But here the complainant does not pray for a direction to the opposite party for the replacement of the TV.  He prays for the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in total.  The price of the TV is Rs. 50,911/-   The remaining part of the amount claimed is towards compensation.  But there is no details of the loss and therefore this commission is no inclined to allow such a huge amount of compensation.  This commission hold that an total amount of 1,00,000/- will be a reasonable compensation in this case.

In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay an amount Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant.  The opposite parties are at liberty to take back the TV, at the time of payment of the compensation amount. 

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

       Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exhibit

A1: Delivery note issued by Opposite Party No:1

A2 series are copies of Whatsapp messages

      Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/