DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 13/09/2018
CC/108/2018
Raveendran - Complainant
S/o N.Velayudhan,
Arangad Apartments,
Green Garden,Othungode,Thirunellai Post,
Palakkad-678 004.
(By Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran)
Vs
1. The Manager
Kochukudiyil Agencies - Opposite Parties
A &P Complex,Stadium By Pass Road,
Palakkad- 678 001.
(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
2. The General Manager
Videocon Industries. Ltd,
Plot No.296,Udyog Vihar,Phase-2,
Gurgaon- 122 015,Haryana.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a 40 inch LED TV model IVF40F21M on 03/05/2016 from the 1st opposite party, who is the authorised dealer of VIDEOCON, the 2nd opposite party on payment of Rs.30,000/-. The TV set has a warranty for 3 years as per the Videocon Extended warranty. The extended warranty of 2 years was provided in addition to the comprehensive warranty of 1 year under a special scheme for the purchase between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2016. The television set started showing problems with its display and the complainant booked a complaint with the opposite party and it was attended to by their authorised service engineer on 04/05/2018. He informed the complainant that the display of the Television need to be replaced and promised to carry out the necessary repairs after informing the opposite parties.
Inspite of the complainant’s repeated requests, the opposite parties did not replace the display or carry out the necessary repair works. The complainant had also issued a Lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties to redress his grievance.
The opposite parties had sold a defective product knowingly, for illegal enrichment and the act of the opposite parties amount to Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in service. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally responsible to carryout repairs by replacing the display of the TV set. Since they failed to do this, the complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties.
1. To replace the defective Television set with a new one.
2. To pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony
and monetary loss.
3. To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. After admitting the complaint, registered notices were issued to both opposite parties. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. OP2 did not appear and was set ex-parte.
3. The 1st opposite party, after denying the averments in the complaint, contended that the TV set was sold in a perfect and good working condition. The complainant purchased it after having been fully satisfied about its functioning. There is no manufacturing defect in the TV set as alleged by the complainant. If any defect occurred, it is only because of the complainant’s mishandling. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed and the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit in evidence and Ext A1 to A6 were marked. (Ext A4 in series (a) & (b)). Complainant filed an application as IA.97/19 to appoint an expert Commissioner to inspect the TV set and it was allowed and the Commissioner filed report. Commission report was marked as Ext C1(with objection). 1st opposite party also field chief affidavit, but no documents were marked from their side. No witnesses were examined from both sides and evidence was closed. Both parties filed notes of arguments and heard both parties.
5. Main points arising for consideration are.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on
the part of opposite parties ?.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for ?
3. Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
Point No.1
6. We have perused the affidavit and documents produced. Ext A1 is the ‘Retail Invoice’ issued by the 1st opposite party dated 03/05/2016 showing the purchase of VIDEOCON LED 40 IVE 40F21M model Television for an amount of Rs.30,000/- Ext A3, the Videocon Extended warranty offer card shows 3 years warranty for the product from the date of purchase i.e. from 03/05/2016.
7. Grievance of the complainant is that display of the Television set started showing problems in the year 2018 and he booked a complaint with the opposite parties on 04/05/2018 and the service engineer of the opposite party inspected the TV set. The Engineer, after inspection, informed him that the display of the TV set has to be replaced. He further contended that the opposite parties did not care to attend his grievance even after his repeated requests. He caused issuance of a Lawyer’s Notice for that purpose which is marked as Ext A4(a).
8. From the averments in the complaint, it is clear that the TV’s display became defective within the warranty period itself. The opposite parties, after denying the contentions put forward by the complainant, stated that TV was in perfect working condition when it was sold and if any defect occurred, it is due to the mishandling by the complainant himself. But they have not taken any steps to cross examine the complainant to bring out the veracity of their contention.
9. In-order to substantiate his claim, the complainant filed IA.97/19 for appointment of an Expert Commissioner along with a panel for inspection of the Television set. An expert was appointed by this Commission, from the panel submitted by the complainant. At that stage no objection was raised by the opposite party regarding the expert’s qualification and his expertise to inspect the TV set. After that, the Commissioner filed report and no objection was filed by the opposite party to that report even after several chances being given . The opposite party raised objection regarding the expert’s qualification and evidentiary value of the report only at the time of marking of the report. Such a stand without filing any objection to the Commissioner’s report is not acceptable and the objections are unsustainable .
10. The Commissioner in his report noted that the display was not coming on switching the Television on and only the red light was on and it was not changing to green light. He further reported that “Scalar board  \n¶pw ]m\ente¡v Hcp t{Um¸v DÅXmbn ImWs¸«p. Integrated chip hÃmsX NqSmIp¶pmbncp¶p ]m\ ]cntim[n¨Xn AXv complaint BsW¶v a\Ênembn. ” So the expert has stated that panel of the TV became defective and it is not in working condition.
11. The opposite parties are bound to repair / replace the defective parts when the product is within the warranty period. Here the opposite parties failed to provide proper service to the complainant and it is a Deficiency in service on their part.
Issues 2 & 3
12. We observe that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the Deficiency in service on their part and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result the complaint is allowed.
Since the Videocon company(2nd opposite party) is facing the CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process), we cannot direct them to compensate the complainant.
So we direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- (being the depreciated value of the TV set) to the complainant along with interest at 9% from 04/05/2018 (when he booked a complaint for the first time) till realization.
We further direct the 1st opposite party to give compensation of Rs.10,000/- for their Deficiency in service and for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Once the payment is made, the 1st opposite party may claim their pro-rate share from the 2nd opposite party taking recourse to any other legal remedy available to them.
This Order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K.,
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext A1- Retail Invoice bearing No. KKP 00753 Dated 03/05/2016.
Ext A2- VIDEOCON Owner’s Manual.
Ext A3- Videocon extended warranty offer card Dated 03/05/2016.
Ext A4- Copy of Lawyer notice with postal receipts Dated 27/06/2018.
Ext A5- Acknowledgement card of 1st opposite party Dated 28/06/2018.
Ext A6- Unserved Lawyer ‘s Notice to 2nd opposite party Dated 16/07/2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Court exhibits
Ext C1- Commissioner’s report dated 12.02.2020.
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: 5000/-
