IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 14^thday of March, 2023.

                                      Filed on 07.11.2022

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
   •  

CC/No.287/2022

between

Complainant:-                                                              Opposite parties:-

Sri.Babu Joseph                                             1.      The Manager, TCL TV company

Karukaparambil                                                       Aldous Glare trade and Exports

Punnapra P.O.                                                         G 63, Panampally Nagar

Alappuzha-4                                                            Cochin-682036

(Party in person)

                                                                      2.      The Manager, Cloudtail India Pvt.Ltd.

                                                                               TCL Warehouse, Unit 1

                                                                               SF No.496/A, 497

                                                                               Mopperipalayam Village

                                                                               Kaduvettipalayam post

                                                                               Karumathampatti

                                                                               Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore

                                                                               Tamilnadu-641659

                                                                               (Ops.1 and 2 are exparte)

O R D E R

SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

          Brief facts of the complainants case is that :-

          On 22.07.2020 the complainant purchased a TCL TV through Amazon.  After using the TV for one year, a line appeared in the middle of the display.  The complainant informed to the 1^st opposite party and the service person of the opposite party inspected and informed that they will replace the same and took it away.  But after two days he brought it back since he says that the one year warranty provided for the product has expired and have he demanded Rs.8,000/- as repairing expenses.  Actually, 3 years warranty is given to the product.   The complainant alleged that opposite party is evading from the warranty by them is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

          The complainant is seeking the following reliefs in the complaint that to direct the opposite parties to replace the disputed product as mentioned in the warranty card and also direct to pay compensation for deficiency in service as well as costs of the proceedings. 

2.       Points that arose for consideration is as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the disputed TV with new one?
2. Whether opposite parties committed deficiency in service?  If so what is the quantum of compensation?
3. Reliefs and costs?

3.       Point Nos. 1 and 2

          On perusal of Exts.A1 and A2 invoice it revealed that on 25.07.2020 the complainant purchased a TCL TV of the 1^st opposite party through Amazon.  In Ext.A3, certificate of warranty specifically mentioned that “ the warranty will be applicable for thirty-six (36) months from the date of original purchase for product LED TV”.  As per the evidence it is found that the disputed product is within the warranty coverage.  The complainant alleged that opposite party did not rectify the defect or replace the defective TV from the silence of the opposite party it can be found that there is substance in the allegation of the complainant.  So it can be seen that the complainant’s case has been proved.  In the absence of any contrary evidence we found that the complainant’s request to replace the TV is genuine.        Seemingly, opposite parties remained absent after received notice from the Commission.  Hence the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Moreover, it can be seen that the opposite party has deliberately evaded their responsibility.  In the above mentioned reasons, we find that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.  Therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

Point No.3

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as follows:-

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the disputed TV with a new one of the same specifications and provide 3 years fresh warranty for the same.  In that event, the complainant shall handed over the disputed TV to the opposite party simultaneously.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  14^th day of March, 2023. 

                                                Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

                                               Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext.A1                  -    Copy of tax invoice dtd.25.07.2020

Ext.A2                -      Copy of tax invoice

Ext.A3                -     Warranty card

Evidence of the opposite parties:  NIL      

                                                                ///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Sa/-

Comp.by: