D.O.F : 13/12/2023

                                                                                                       D.O.O : 10/07/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.400/2023

      Dated this, the 10^th day of July 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                               : MEMBER

Prashanth Kumar T, aged 42 years

S/o Padmanabhan T

Thayambath House, Kuttamath

Cheruvathur P O,

Kasaragod District. 

(Adv: Prakash P M)                                                                                    : Complainant                        

   And

1. The Manager

National Radio Electronics

Main Road, Payyannur.

Pin – 670307.

2. The Managing Director,

Administrative Office,

National Radio Electronics,

Thrichambaram,

Thaliparamba – 670141.

3. The Manager,

NESTRON TECHNOLOGIES,

15/137C, Manath Estate, Industrial Road,

Keenpuram, South Vazhakkulam,

Ernakulam, Kerala - 683105.                                                      : Opposite Parties

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

            The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, he purchased a television set from opposite party No. 1 on 15/12/2020, a Nestron LED TV 50 Crysta X, Smart TV (Code: 23775) with V-guard stabilizer VG Crystal (Code: 4709).  The price is paid in cash by the complainant and the respondent No.1 issued a bill dated 15/12/2020 and warranty/guaranty card.  Respondent No.2 is the administrative office of the dealers and opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of electronic goods with the registered office at South Vazhakkulam, Ernakulam, with the name and style of NESTRON. The warranty card assures the proper functioning of the television set for 3 years from the date of purchase.  From the beginning itself, the complainant has noticed that the software is not working properly and the android compatibility as claimed by the dealer is a bogus guarantee.  On 06/10/2023, the complainant has approached opposite party No.1 regarding the software issues, werein the manager, opposite party No. 2 has attended the complainant and insisted the complainant to bring the TV to their showroom.  After repeated requests, the showroom people have taken away the TV on 14/10/2023 and there is no response since then.  The showroom authorities have neither escalated the issue to the level of the manufacturer nor was cured the defects.  The complainant is working at Bangaluru hence did not have enough time to make follow up with the dealer, or the manufacturer for this period.  The respondent No.1 has after several reminders, ultimately made it clear that defect of the TV is of manufacturing defect and cannot be fully corrected.  So the complainant wants to replace the television set at an earlier date.  A legal notice was sent on 10/11/2023 to the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3.  The opposite parties had committed breach of warranty conditions, negligence which caused huge loss and damages, mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is seeking replacement of the television set or to refund Rs. 34,700/- paid to the respondent for the purchase with 9% interest per annum along with Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation and cost of the proceedings. 

            Notice of opposite party No. 1 & 2 served, opposite party No. 3 door closed.  But all opposite parties remained absent, name 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.  Ext. A1 series are the invoice issued by opposite party to the complainant, Ext. A2 is the legal notice dated 10/11/2023 issued by the complainant to opposite parties.  Ext. A3 are the AD cards.  The issues raised for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties to cure the defects of the complainant’s TV?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. If so, what is the relief?

For convenience, all issues can be discussed together.  The case of the complainant is that, the TV set purchased from respondent No.1 was not functioning properly.  On 6/10/2023, the complainant has approached the dealer opposite party No. 1 regarding software issues.  Then the manager insisted the complainant to bring the TV set to their showroom.  After repeated requests, the showroom people have taken away the TV on 14/10/2023.  Thereafter no response from the side of opposite parties.  The complainant was working at Bangaluru, so that he has not getting enough time to follow up with the dealer, manufacturer etc.  Fed up with the negligent attitude of opposite parties, the complainant caused to send a legal notice on 10/11/2023 to all respondents.  Even though the TV had valid guaranty/warranty during the time of registering defects, the opposite parties failed either to cure the defects or replace the TV, which is a serious deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act.  After spending Rs. 34,700/- for a television set, the complainant was unable to get peaceful enjoyment of the television set due to the defects.  Even after sending a notice Ext. A2 also, no proper steps were taken by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  No reply is sent to legal notice.  In the absence of rebuttal evidence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, due to which the complainant had undergone huge loss, mental agony and hardships.  Hence the complainant is entitled for relief.  After taken the TV by the showroom people, it is their duty to find out the defect and cure it at the earliest.  If the TV had any manufacturing defect, they are bound to replace it.  But in this case, after taking the TV from the complainant, the opposite parties neither cured the defects nor replaced the set. 

The commission carefully gone through the affidavit and legal notice produced by the complainant.  The negligent attitude of the opposite party No.1 caused severe loss and agony to the complainant. 

The relief claimed by the complainant is either to refund Rs. 34,700/- or to replace the television set with interest, compensation and cost.  In this case, the TV set is   taken by opposite parties due to defect on 14/10/2023.  So replacement is not possible in this case after such a long period. Moreover the complainant has lost trust in opposite parties. Hence refund of the amount with interest, compensation and cost is reasonable.  The complainant is seeking Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.  But he has not produced any evidence for such a huge loss.  Considering the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.  The complainant is entitled for cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/-.

Therefore complaint is partly allowed, directing all opposite parties to refund Rs. 34,700/- (Rupees Thirty Four thousand Seven hundred only) with interest 9% from the date purchase, 15/12/2020 till payment with a compensation Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount. 

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 series – Invoice

A2 – Legal notice

A3 series – AD cards

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/