Kerala

Idukki

CC/3/2021

Georgekutty K J - Complainant(s)

Versus

S . Squard Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 12/01/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 3^rd day of November 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.03/2021

Between

Complainant                             :  Georgekutty K.J.,

                                                     Koolipparambil, Upputhara P.O.,      

                                                     Upputhara Village, Peermade Taluk,

                                                     Idukki District – 685 505.

                                                     (By Adv.K.B.Selvam)

                                                           And

Opposite Party :                      :   1 .  The Manager, S.Squared Technologies,

                                                           1/38, Neendoor Building, Near Gurumandiram,

                                                            Kattappana P.O., Kattappana Village,

                                                            Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District – 685 508.

                                                      2  .  Oxygen Digital Shop (Head Office),

                                                             Kinattummoottil Building, VIII/107A,

                                                             M.C.Road, Nagampadam, Kottayam Village,

                                                             Kottayam District – 686 006.

                                                             (Both by Adv.Saji Augustine)

                                                       3 .  Mr.Care Center, Mr.Light Tower,

                                                              Main Road, Pattambi, Palakkad,

                                                              Pattambi Village, Kerala – 679 303.

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Complainant raised the following allegations against opposite parties and sought for the following reliefs:-

 

1 . The first opposite party is a dealer of electronics goods including Television  Sets and carries on business in the name of Oxygen, a Digital shop at

 

(Cont....2)

-2-

 

 

Kattappana.  Second opposite party is the whole sale dealer of electronics goods and third opposite party is the manufacturer of the electronics goods.  On 21/12/2019 the first opposite party has given an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama daily in which opposite party propagated that electronics goods will be sold with attractive price reductions and many more offers.  The offer was in connection with Christmas and New-Year Celebration in 2019. 

 

2 . The complainant has got information from first opposite party and with the pressure from the first opposite party, complainant visited first opposite party’s showroom and accepted the offer which is mentioned in the advertisement.  Complainant was interested to buy a TV of LG Company but first opposite party compelled to buy a Smart light LED TV manufactured by the third opposite party. First opposite party made assurance that more quality product is this, and many more after sale service was offered by them.  Thereafter complainant bought a Smart Light LED Television set manufactured by the third opposite party worth Ten Thousand Rupees from the above mentioned shop on 21/12/2019.

 

3 . But after six months, the Smart Light LED Television starts malfunctioning.  Photo of the current display condition of Television is produced.  Then the complainant informed the first opposite party about malfunction of the LED TV by a Telephone call.  Then they promised to send a mechanic to fix it.   But after waiting some days, the first opposite party could not solve the problem by sending a mechanic.  Thereafter the complainant went directly to the shop and met the manager and requested him to solve the problem of the Television or replace the same.  But the manager openly said that he cannot either repair the TV or replace new one as it was bought by the complainant in the reduction sale programme.  Complainant was pulled to big damages, his child was studying and has to attend online class in the period of epidemic spread.   Education department has launched a programme for online classes, it was missed so far, it created heavy mental pain and damage to the complainant  that  to  be  compensated  by  the  opposite  parties.  After  that  the complainant sent an advocate notice to the first opposite party, but the first opposite party did not give any reply till now.

 

 

(Cont....3)

 

-3-

Complainant pulled to irreparable metal agonies because the warranty is not expired and it is a grave deficiency in service and it to be compensated and it had happened at Upputhara Kara is in the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court  and can be triable by this Forum. 

 

Complainant prayed for the following reliefs.

 

1 .  Opposite parties  may be directed to replace the Television bought from  them.

2 . Direction may be given to opposite parties to pay costs of litigation Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.50000/- to him for his sufferings and mental pain.

3 . Any other relief that is fit to the ends of justice may be allowed.

 

Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version in the following lines.

 

1 . The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.  The complainant has no cause of action to approach this Hon’ble Court.  This opposite parties had by reply notice informed the complainant that they are ready to examine the alleged defective TV and got it replaced if needed.  But the complainant had not responded to the same and had rushed to the court seeking reliefs.

 

2 . The averments in paragraph one of the complaint are not much disputed.  But the averments in para 2 of the complaint are denied.  The averments that the first opposite party pressurized the complainant to buy a TV manufactured by the third opposite party even when the complainant was intending to purchase an LG TV is denied.  In fact the complainant was short of money to purchase an LG Television and only the one bought suit his pocket.  The further averment with regard to assurance of quality, service are all denied and this opposite parties had informed the complainant of the after sales services in the correct perspective alone.

 

3 . The averments in paragraph 3 of the complaint are denied.  The averment that the complaint had complained of the malfunctioning of the TV is denied.  In fact the complaint had never informed to the opposite parties of the same otherwise than by an advocate notice.  Upon receipt of the notice a reply was issued stating that they are ready to replace if the situation so warrants after examination by a TV technician.  But he had rushed to the court seeking reliefs.

(Cont....4)

 

-4-

4 . The opposite parties may be given a chance to examine the TV and the opposite parties are ready to repair the same.  If there is serious defect and the TV needs to be replaced, upon examination, the opposite parties are ready for the same.

 

Third opposite party did not appear or filed written version.  Hence third opposite party  is set ex parte.

 

Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  4 documents produced were marked as Exts.P1 to P4.

 

Ext.P1 – Copy of paper cutting of Malayala Manoram Daily (printed date not shown, date manually written as 21/12/2019) about the Christmas – New Year offer published by “Oxygen”.

 

Ext.P2 – Original invoice No.RI/MKT/3328 dated 21/12/2019 of S.Squared Technologies Kattappana with emblem “Oxygen the Digital  Shop” issued to complainant for sale of Mr.Light Smart Light LED TV for Rs.10000/- including GST.

 

Ext.P3 – Photocopy of TV Display having darkness and lines.

 

Ext.P4 – Copy of Advocate Notice dated Nil issued by complainant’s

Adv.Joby George to opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

 

We have examined the pleadings, arguments put forth by both sides and documents produced by complainant.  On a careful examination of the same, following points arise for consideration.

 

1 . Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2 . If so, for what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

3 . Costs of litigation.

 

 

 

(Cont....5)

 

-5-

Point No.1

 

Third opposite party has not filed written version or appeared before this Commission,  eventhough notice was properly served on them.   From this, it is clear that they have nothing to say about the allegations of complainant.  Opposite

parties 1 and 2 have contested the case.  On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is seen that second opposite party had made paper advertisement about their reduction sale programme of goods in connection with X-Mas – New Year Celebration.

 

Ext.P3 shows that TV’s display is malfunctioning due to darkness and cross lines on screen.  This is definitely a manufacturing defect of the product.  Even though opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that after receipt of lawyer’s notice, they had given reply stating that they are ready to replace the TV if the situation so warrants after examination by TV technician, they have not produced any evidence to substantiate the contention.  From this it is clear that such contention is raised only to escape from legal action.  No attempt was made to check the TV even after receipt of lawyer’s notice.  Nothing contrary to the allegations of complainant could be brought out on cross examination of complainant by opposite parties 1 and 2.  They have utterly failed to substantiate their contentions.  So, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

On an analysis of the entire facts and evidence reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.  As the product is found to be defective, manufacturer as well as product seller are liable for their negligence.  ‘Product Seller’ includes distributor also as per S.2 (37) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  As privity of contract is with product seller and that being so, he has also liability to repair or replace the defective product.   Complainant’s averment is that as the TV was defective, his child missed online classes during Covid Pandemic period which caused mental pain and damage to him.  Considering the entire aspects of the case, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation for the negligence of opposite parties.  So, we find that complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand).  Hence we order so.   Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

 

 

(Cont....6)

 

 

-6-

Point No.2

 

In the light of discussions and our findings on Point No.1, we find that complainant is entitled to the following reliefs.

 

1 . As the complainant deposed that he had already purchased another TV, direction for repair is found to be not proper.  Hence, we direct the opposite parties to refund the price of TV Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order on returning the defective product to the seller.  If it is not returned,an amount of Rs.1000/- may be deducted from the above amount and balance to be paid.

2 . Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as compensation to the complainant for the injury caused to him due to the negligence of opposite parties.

 

3 .Considering the facts of the case, complainant is entitled to litigation costs of Rs.2000/- .

 

In the result, complaint is allowed in part with the following directions.

 

1 .  Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to refund the price of TV Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order on returning the defective product to the seller.  If it is not so returned, an amount of Rs.1000/- may be deducted from the above amount and balance to be paid.

 

2 . Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for  injury caused to him due to their negligence.

 

3 . They are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of this case to the complainant.

 

All the above amounts should be paid within 30 days of receipt of this order in the manner shown above, failing which complainant is entitled to recover the

 

 

 

(Cont....7)

 

-7-

same from  the  opposite  parties  with  simple interest  @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint, except on litigation costs, till realization.   Interim application if any stands disposed of.

 

 Extra copies to be taken back by parties without delay.

 

       Pronounced by this Commission on this the 3^rd day of November, 2022.

 

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                   SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                    SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                            SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Georgekutty K.J.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 -   Copy of paper cutting of Malayala Manoram Daily (printed date not

                 shown, date manually written as 21/12/2019) about the Christmas – New

                 Year offer published by Oxygen.

Ext.P2 -  Original invoice No.RI/MKT/3328 dated 21/12/2019 of S.Squared 

               Technologies Kattappana with emblem “Oxygen the Digital  Shop” issued

               to complainant for sale of Mr.Light Smart Light LED TV for Rs.10000/- 

               including GST.

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of TV Display having darkness and lines.

Ext.P4 - Copy of Advocate Notice dated Nil issued by complainant’s

               Adv.Joby George to opposite parties 1 and 2.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil                                            

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR