BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER 

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 171/2022 Filed on 16/05/2022

ORDER DATED: 29/09/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant, on 05/07/2021 came across the online offer made by the 3^rd opposite party on its web service platform and attracted by the same, the complainant placed an order of One Plus Q1 Pro 55 IN Television along with a table top stand from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.87,889/-.  On 09/07/2021 the product was delivered to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party.  The television was chosen by the complainant over the other brands available in the market, upon placing reliance on the false assurances and representations made by the opposite parties, with respect to the laudable and incomparable product quality as well as immaculate service that were being provided.  The complainant received a defective product.  At the bottom of the TV a sliding sound bar is inbuilt.  The sliding sound bar of the television was not properly fixed due to which it hit the base of the television whenever it switches on.  The complainant brought into the notice of service engineer of the 1^st opposite party and also requested him to take the necessary steps to ratify the defect.  Even after the repeated request the service personal of the 1^st opposite party did not turn up and make inordinate delay to visit and inspect the defective product.  Belatedly the service personal visited to check the defective product received by the complainant.  It is informed by the service personal that he has never seen this model and attributed it to the stand being faulty and that there was nothing he could do to fix it.  Therefore on 15/09/2021 the complainant was forced to place another order for a new table top stand from the 3^rd opposite party and the same was delivered by the 2^nd opposite party.  But quite surprisingly the complainant faced the similar problem with the new table top stand as well.  When the new table top was fixed again the base of the sound bar hit the base of the TV.  Due to the frequent hitting of the base the complainant felt it will cause damage to the TV.  Therefore the complainant decided to wall mount the TV.  Accordingly he made a call to the customer care executive of the 1^st opposite party but they didn’t turn up for a couple of weeks.  To the horror of the complainant the display of the TV went blank and a crack was appeared on the TV.  Without wasting a single second the complainant raised the ticket and reported the matter to the service personal of the 1^st respondent.  All the concerned raised by the complainant went in vain.  On 03/10/2021 the complainant booked for a repair through the One Plus Care mobile application.  On 16/10/2021 the complainant with a hope to repair the same raised another ticket through the same portal.  On 21/10/2021 again the complainant made a call to the customer care executive of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant brought the TV before 7 months and he didn’t get a change to use the same properly.  Therefore the complainant, on 16/02/2022, had issued a lawyer’s notice to all the three opposite parties seeking forth to get his complaint redressed by not only making an earnest effort to set right the fault and also to compensate the complainant for the damages incurred by him.  Hence, all the three opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the same.  Hence the complaint.     

After accepting the notices the opposite parties absent before the Commission and opposite parties set ex parte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P6 marked from the side of the complainant. 

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:-  We perused relevant documents on records.  As per Ext.P1 the copy of invoice issued by 3^rd opposite party shows that the total amount of television was Rs.84,899/-.  Ext.P2 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.P3 and P4 is the reply notice sent to the complaiant.  Ext.P5 & P6 series were the postal receipts and acknowledgment cards.  The complainant stated that the product for an amount of Rs.87,889/- delivered to the complainant on 09/07/2021 by 2^nd opposite party and he had received a defective product.  Further complaint stated that the sliding sound bar is inbuilt at the bottom of the TV and it was not properly fixed due to which it hit the base of the television whenever it switches on.  The complainant requested the service engineer of 1^st opposite party to take necessary steps to rectify the defect.  But the service personal of 1^st opposite party did not turn up to inspect the defect.  According to the complainant the service personal informed that he was never seen this model and attributed it to the stand being faulty and there was nothing he could do to fix it.  Therefore the complainant was forced to place another order for anew table top stand from 3^rd opposite party on 15/09/2021.  The complainant had faced the similar problem with the new table stand as well. 

The complainant stated that the opposite parties had not taken steps to rectify the defect and the display of TV went blank and a crack was appeared on TV. The complainant called opposite parties in several times to repair the TV.  But there was no response legal notice marked as Ext.P2 sent to the opposite parties.  the complainant stated that the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties sent reply stating false and baseless contentions.  The opposite parties had not repaired the television and the complainant had faced problems with the television. 

The opposite parties had not produced evidence to disprove the case of the complainant.

In view of the above discussion and on the basis of available evidence we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. 

In the result complaint is allowed.  We directed the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to replace the television with a brand new set or pay Rs.84,899/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Nine Only)  as price of product and pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/-  (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.  After complying the order the complainant shall give television to opposite parties.            

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 Court, this the 29^th day of September,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 171/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT