KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 97/2020

JUDGMENT DATED: 26.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 119/2018 of DCDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Proprietor, Alfa Agencies, Mananthavady Road, Meenangadi, Wayanad.

(By Adv. N.G. Mahesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Scaria N.D., Nellinilkum Thadathil House, Vazhavatta P.O., Vazhavatta, Muttil South Village, Wayanad-673 122.

2. Videocon Industries Ltd., 14 KMS Stone, Aurangabad, Paithan Road, Chitegon, TQ, Paithan, District Aurangabad-431 105.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 119/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (for short “the District Commission”).  The 1^st respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission. 

2.  The complainant purchased a LED TV set on 24.10.2016 at a price of Rs. 28,501/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and One only) from the 1^st opposite party, which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The said LED TV set was having warranty for three years.  On 17.06.2018, the TV set had become defective. The 1^st opposite party cleared the defects once; but the same complaint recurred.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party again to rectify the defects. But the 1^st opposite party neglected and misbehaved. The complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party with the same complaint.  However, the 1^st opposite party failed to rectify the defects. In the said circumstances, the complainant contended that the defects in the TV set were manufacturing defects.  The complainant also alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.  The 1^st opposite party alone filed version admitting the purchase of the TV set and the period of warranty contended by the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the defects could be cured within two weeks.  The 1^st opposite party denied the allegation that he misbehaved with the complainant when he approached the 1^st opposite party to cure the defects of the TV set. The 1^st opposite party contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

4.  The 2^nd opposite party neither appeared before the District Commission nor filed any version.

5.  Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for the complainant.  OPW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the 1^st opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the 2^nd opposite party to refund an amount of Rs. 28,501/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and One only), which was the price of the TV set, to the complainant. The District Commission further directed the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st opposite party has filed this appeal.

6.  Heard.  Perused the records.

7.  The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant was only a dealer, the appellant was not responsible for the manufacturing defects, if any. Even though the complainant had taken a contention that the LED TV set purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defects, the appellant did not have any such contention in the version filed before the District Commission.  There is also no report before the District Commission to prove that the LED TV set of the complainant had any manufacturing defect.  It is borne out from the version of the appellant itself that the defects could be rectified by replacing the panel.  In the absence of any material to show that the LED TV set of the complainant was having any manufacturing defect, we are of the view that there cannot be any finding that the said LED TV set was having any manufacturing defect. That apart, the 1^st opposite party had a contention that the defects could be rectified by replacing the panel. 

8.  The District Commission directed the manufacturer to refund the price of the TV set.  Since there is no appeal by the 2^nd opposite party, we are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said direction. Even though the 1^st opposite party contended that the defects could be rectified by replacing the panel, the 1^st opposite party did not rectify the defects. In the said circumstances, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/1^st opposite party in this regard. Therefore, the direction by the District Commission to the appellant, to pay the compensation and the costs, does not call for any interference by this Commission.   

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the 1^st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER