BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 279/2019 Filed on 27/08/2019

ORDER DATED:  16/01/2023

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

           The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a Videocon 50inch model LED TV from the show room of 1^st opposite party.  But two months before filing this petition it is noticed by the complainant that some white patches were seen on the display and also speakers were not working properly.  The complainant intimated all these things to the 1^st opposite party.  But there was no response from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant on 06/08/2019 went to the show room of the 1^st opposite party and registered a complaint.  Even though he directly registered the complaint there was no response from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant contacted the service centre, but his complaint was not resolved.  The act of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.    

The 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Even though the 2^nd opposite party received notice they didn’t appeared before this Commission hence the 2^nd opposite party was set ex parte.  1^st opposite party has averred that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that they sold the LED TV of Videocon Company to the complainant.  It is also contended that the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party is authorized person to clear the complaint if any.  The complainant has purchased the product in the year 2015 and he is using the LED TV for the last 3 years without any complaint.  When the complainant informed the complaint of the product to the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party registered a complaint to the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has done its duty without any delay and the rest of the dealings are with the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  The service centre was not made a party in this complaint.  At the time of purchasing the LED TV the 2^nd opposite party was in existence.  1^st opposite party is only a dealer of the LED TV and the 2^nd opposite party is liable for the manufacturing defect of the product.  Even if the damage caused within the warranty period assured by the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party is not liable   for the same.  The 1^st opposite party is helpless for the manufacturing defect of the product.  The 2^nd opposite party is alone responsible for the manufacturing defect of the alleged product.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 1^st opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to the 1^st opposite party. 

Issues to be ascertained:

(i). Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from

     the side of opposite parties 1& 2?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues No.(i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A4 and a CD was marked as MO1.  The 1^st opposite party has filed proof affidavit.  No documents were marked from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has not filed argument note.

It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant has purchased the LED TV from their show room, which is also evident from Ext.A1.  Even though the complainant registered a complaint before the 1^st opposite party they have not taken any steps to resolve the complaint of the TV.  It is also admitted by the 1^st opposite party that they are only the dealer of 2^nd opposite party and they are not responsible for the manufacturing defect of the product.  Since the 1^st opposite party being the dealer of 2^nd opposite party, they are liable to cure the defect of the product sold by them, but they have not done that.  From the documents produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service form the side of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties.  Hence 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.       

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1& 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 16^th  day of January,  2023.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R                                                                                            

C.C. No. 279/2019

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

V.        COURT EXHIBIT

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R