D.O.F:23/07/2022
D.O.O:20/11/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.163/2022
Dated this, the 20th day of November 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Muhammed Kunhi Palakki
S/o Late Palakki Kunhamu
Palakki House,
Kizhur,
Kalanad,
Kasaragod district.
: Complainant
And
- The Manager
National Radio and Electronics
New Bus Stand
Kasaragod.
(Adv: Giriprasad P)
- Intex Technologies (India) Ltd,
SF No.222/PT,
Ward No.43, 2 PT
Uzaippalar Street, Vellarkkinar
Coimbatore, TN-641029. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is that he had not availed proper service from opposite party No.1, when his colour TV purchased from opposite party No.1 become defective during warranty period.
The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant purchased a colour TV from the shop of opposite party No.1 on 06/09/2019 and the product has 3 years warranty. The opposite party No.1 is the seller and the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the TV purchased from opposite party No.1. The aforesaid TV became defective on 10/06/2022 and it is informed to opposite party No.1. On 24/06/2022, a staff of opposite party informed the complainant that the TV has to be taken to the service center for repair. And they are ready to cure the defects within 2 days. Even though opposite party collected Rs.500/- from the complainant as service charge, the TV is not functioning after repair also. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 many times as per the information given from opposite party that the defect of the TV is cured. But it was not cured. Even now, the TV is not working properly. So the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- from opposite party for his loss and mental agony.
Adv. Giriprasad filed version for opposite party No.1. According to opposite party No.1, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and misjoinder of opposite party. This opposite party is the leading electronics dealer in Kasaragod and having a good track record and good customer relationship and in order to pressurize this opposite party to settle the dispute with manufacturer the complainant made this opposite party as a party to this complaint. The opposite party No.1 admitted the purchase of TV by the complainant and the customer complaint from the complainant, the same was registered with the manufacturer Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. In response to the registration of complaint a technician of manufacturer attended the complaint at his house thereafter taken the TV to the service center of Intex and cured the defects upon satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant taken back the TV to his house. After some days again the complainant approached them with another complaint. Thereafter it is learnt that the complainant refused the service from the technician of Intex on the reason that they are initiating legal proceedings. This opposite party has no connection with the services done through the technicians of the manufacturer. And the opposite party has not collected any service charge from the complainant. Since the complaint involved is relating to manufacturing defect and the services were done by the technician of the manufacturer, the manufacturer is a necessary party to decide the case on merits. The service details and technical issues of the product are within the knowledge of the manufacturer. There is no deficiency of service on the side of opposite party No.1. And the opposite party No.1 is not liable for any reliefs claimed in this case. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Complainant filed IA 381/2022 for impleading supplemental opposite party No.2, IA heard and allowed. Notice of supplemental opposite party No.2 is served. The remained absent. Name of opposite party No.2 called absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Thereafter the opposite party filed IA 177/2023 to reopen the evidence of the complainant. IA allowed. The complainant was cross examined by the counsel of opposite party No.1 as PW1. No evidence is adduced by opposite party No.1. And heard both parties.
The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 in non-curing the defects of complainant’s TV?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, issue No.1 to 3 can be discussed together. The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a colour TV from opposite party No.1. After 2 years of purchase, the TV showed some complaints and it is registered with opposite party No.1. After 2 weeks of registering the complaint, a service person from opposite party visited the complainant and advised him to take the TV to the service center, so that they can cure the defect. Thus, the complainant had taken the TV to the service center of opposite party No.1. Ext. A1 is the Cash bill. As per Ext.A1, the opposite party collected Rs.500/- as service charge from the complainant. Even though the opposite party collected Rs.500/- as repair charge and delivered the TV, it was not functioning properly. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and seeking compensation and cost for his loss and mental agony. The complainant had taken the TV to his home after repair. The complainant deposed before the commission that when he switch on the TV after the service, there was an unusual sound. When opposite party No.1 returned the TV after the service, 2 months warranty period was remaining. But the defect of the TV continued after the so called repair.
We carefully gone through the affidavit and documents submitted by the complainant and version filed by opposite party No.1. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, there is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Collecting repair charge without curing the defects of the TV amounts to unfair trade practice. Moreover, the complainant is entitled for free service during warranty period. Yet he was constrained to pay service charge, after repair also the complaint of the TV continued proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant. The complainant is entitled for relief. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant. The complainant’s claim for compensation is too excessive and without any basis. So, the commission holds that the opposite party No.1&2 are bound to replace the defective TV with a new one of model No.LED-4302.
Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party No.1&2 to replace the defective TV and deliver a new one of same model No.LED-4302 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On receiving the new TV, the complainant is directed to return the defective TV.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Cash bill
A2 - Copy of the Invoice
A3 - User manual with Warranty card
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Muhammad Kunhi
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
