DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of June 2022.
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 01.01.2020
CC/2/2020
Biju M
S/o Unnikrishnan
Sreevalsam, Thadukkasheri
Keralasheri,Vadasheri,
Palakkad. - Complainant
Presently residing at “Dhyudhi”
Punchapadam Post
Kadambazhipuram, Palakkad-678 633.
(By Adv. K Sujith Kumar & Adv. P Rajesh)
Vs
1. Manager
HAIER Appliance (India)PVt.Ltd.
Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate
Phase III, New Delhi 110 020
2. The Manager - Opposite Parties
Das Agencies, 7/10(1),
College Road
Palakkad – 678 001
(Opposite party 1 & 2 Exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A, Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a LED, TV model No LE50739000M on 25.12.2018 from the 2nd opposite party’s shop which is manufactured by HAIER ( 1st opposite party ) for a sum of Rs 38,500/-. At the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party issued a warranty card for 12 months from the date of purchase. As per the warranty card, remote and cabinet alone are excluded from the warranty.
On 09.10.2019, while the complainant tried to switch on the TV, it was found that the TV was not working and the display was found to be on one side. The matter was immediately reported to the 2nd opposite party and an online complaint was registered with the 1st opposite party on 10.10.2019. On 11.10.2019, a technician visited his house and after checking the product he asked the complainant to wait for two days since the problem with the product has to be attended by a senior technician. After two days, the same technician came and told the complainant that the TV will not work and he will make proposal to the 1st opposite party to replace the product with a new one and obtained the signature in the specified form to make necessary arrangements. After that, when the complainant switched on the TV, it was found that it was not working at all and there was no display.
Then another technician came on 7/11/2019 for inspecting the TV and replaced the panel board of the TV and told that the panel board was damaged due to careless handling of the TV. Since it was due to physical damage, the company is not liable and it will not come under the warranty and the complainant is not entitled to get the TV replaced. The complainant contacted the opposite parties several times to replace the TV or refund the amount spent for purchasing the TV, but they did not turn up.
The complainant purchased the TV by seeing the attractive offers of the company and they are liable to replace it with a new one. The non-replacement of the defective TV by the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant suffered mental and physical strain due to this.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties (1) To replace the damaged TV set with a new one or in the alternative to pay Rs 38500/- , cost of the TV
(2) To pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation towards the inconveniences, physical and mental strain caused to the complainant due to the inaction and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice was served to both opposite parties. Even though the 2nd opposite party appeared, they did not file their version and 1st opposite party did not appear even after the receipt of notice. So both opposite parties were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Complainant was heard and it was taken for orders.
When the matter was taken up for orders, some doubts crept up and it was posted for re-hearing with regard to the present condition of the TV and to ascertain its present working condition, the complainant was directed to take steps. Thereafter the complainant filed IA 17/22 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the TV. It was allowed and the Commissioner filed report which was marked as Ext C1
4. The main points arising for consideration
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade
Practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
(3) Reliefs as to cost and compensation
5. Point 1
Ex A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 25.12.2018 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. From this it is clear that the complainant purchased a HAIER LE 50B9000M model TV from the 2nd opposite party on payment of Rs 38,500/- Ext A2 is the warranty card issued at the time of purchase. As per that, the product is having 12 months warranty from the date of purchase and the remote and cabinet alone are the parts not covered under the warranty.
6. According to the complainant, on 09/10/2019 when he tried to switch on the TV, it was found that the TV was not working and the display was only on one side and after a few days the TV became totally non functioning . On 07/11/2019, a technician of the first opposite party visited the complainant’s house and he replaced the panel board and opined that it was damaged due to careless handling of the TV and since it is due to physical damage, the company is not liable to replace it and it will not come under warranty policy.
7. The TV was purchased on 25/12/2018 and it stopped working on 09/10/2019. This shows that the TV became defective within 10 months of its purchase. As per the complaint, the service personnel of the 1st opposite party cured the defect by replacing the panel board. There was no mention in the complaint about the present working condition of the TV after the replacement of panel board.
Thereafter, the complainant filed IA.17/22, for appointment of an Adv. Commissioner to inspect the TV. It was allowed and the Commissioner filed report which is marked as Ext C1. The Commissioner was asked to examine the present working condition of the TV for which he answered “When I plugged the Television to the power supply, there is red - colour LED light was displayed on the bottom panel-body of the Television and I switched on with remote (No. HTR-AI8H) there is no display was seen on the screen”.
So from Ext C1 report, the contention of the complainant that the TV stopped working and there was no display is found to be correct.
8. The opposite parties did not appear and file their version. As they remained exparte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
9. The Television became non functioning within the warranty period itself. So the opposite parties are liable to repair the defective parts under warranty or replace it. Since they failed to do this, they are liable for Deficiency in service on their part.
Points 2 & 3
10. When the newly purchased TV became defective within a short span, the complainant would have undergone mental agony. Further it caused financial loss and inconveniences in dragging him into a litigation. The opposite parties are jointly and severally bound to compensate the complainant for this conduct.
In the result the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay jointly and severally Rs.38,500/-, ( Rs. Thirty Eight Thousand Five hundred only) being the cost of the TV together with interest from 09/10 /2019 till realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only )as compensation for their Deficiency in service and for the mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.7500/- ( Seven thousand Five hundred only ) as cost of this litigation.
The Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of June 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
