BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 148/2019 Filed on 21/05/2019

ORDER DATED:14/12/2023

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 Philips LED Television for Rs.52,500/- on 24/08/2015 from the 1^st opposite party.  The television has got 3 years warranty from the date of purchase.  On 19/05/2018 due to a complaint in the television the complainant’s husband informed the 1^st opposite party regarding the complaint and as per their direction technician of the 2^nd opposite party has taken the television for repair.  It is assured that the television will be repaired within 2 weeks.  The complainant used to visit the 2^nd opposite party for 2 to 3 months, but there was no response from them.  After that the 2^nd opposite party directed the complainant to approach the service centre situated at Ernakulam.  The complainant approached the service centre at Ernakulam 2 to 3 times, but there was no response from them also.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party but there was no response from them also.  The the television was not returned to the complainant till now.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

Even though the opposite parties 1 & 2 received notice, the 2^nd opposite party did not appear before this Commission, hence 2^nd opposite party was set ex parte.  

                        The 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  The 1^st opposite party has admitted that the complainant has purchased a Philips 50 inch LED television from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.52,500/- on 24/08/2015 and also it is admitted that the complainant has informed the 1^st opposite party on 19/05/2018 regarding the complaint happened to the television.  The 1^st opposite party has informed the 2^nd opposite party regarding the complaint in the television and they contacted the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party has not agreed to provide the complainant a brand new television.  The 1^st opposite party is not bound by the warranty given by the manufacturer as there was no instruction from the manufacturer for replacement.  There is no unfair trade practice from the part of the 1^st opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with the compensatory cost to the 1^st opposite party.

                        Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P3.  The 1^st opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant has purchased Philips 50 inch LED television from them for Rs.52,500/- and also admitted that the complainant has informed them regarding the complaint happened to the television.  It can be seen from Ext.P1 that the complainant has purchased a television from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.52,500/-.  On going through Ext.P2 it can be seen that the television has got 3 years warranty.  As per Ext.P3 it can be seen that the 2^nd opposite party has received the television for repair and in which it is clearly stated that the complaint is “not working”.  Since the television has got 3 years warranty it is the duty of the opposite parties 1 & 2 to resolve the complaint of the television.  In this case the opposite parties 1 & 2 has neither repaired the television nor returned the television to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party being a dealer is bound to cure the defects occurred to a products sold by them.  The act of the opposite parties 1 &2 amounts to deficiency in service. 

In the result the complainant is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and 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 order 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 14^th  day of December,  2023.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 148/2019

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT