IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of December, 2021
Filed on 08.07.2021
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.129/2021
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Sadasivan 1. The Manager
Cholam Parambil Dianora India
North Aryad.P.O Kottarappalam
Alappuzha-688538 Alappuzha-688011
(Party in person) (Exparte)
2. The Proprietor
White Mart Life Home
Appliances and Gift Shopee
AGP 14/1 GEE, Near SBI Bank
Thalavady, Avalookkunnu.P.O
Alappuzha-688006
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. The brief fact of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Dianora LED TV 32 inch along with one stabilizer from the 2nd opposite party on 13/2/2021. The same was manufactured by 1st opposite party and have provided 3 years warranty. The service personal of the opposite party installed the same. Unfortunately after 86 days the product became defunct. Consequently registered a complaint, accordingly the technician of the opposite party inspected the product. The very next day the government declared lockdown. Thereafter no information from the opposite parties. After the lockdown the complainant contacted the opposite party but they informed that the warranty has been expired and needs Rs.4000/- for repairing charge. The 2nd opposite party made believe the complainant that this kind of brand only having 3 years warranty. So the complainant purchased the disputed TV . But the opposite party demanded repairing charge without considering the defect found within the warranty period. The said acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for seeking following relief sought against the opposite parties.
1. direct the opposite party to replace the defective TV with a new one.
2. Compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings.
2. In view of the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration are :-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the disputed TV with new one?
2. Whether opposite parties are committed any deficiency in service?
3. Relief and cost?
3. Complainant was filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A2 were marked. The opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte.
We have heard the complaint.
4. Point No.1 and 2:-
Ext.A1 is the copy of Tax Invoice dtd. 13/2/2021 revealed the transaction between the parties. Ext.A2 is the copy of warranty card in which provided 3 years of warranty for the product under dispute. As per the records the complainant purchased the disputed TV on 13/2/2021. He alleged that the defect occurred after the lapse of 86 days from the date of purchase ie, within 3 months of his purchase. This complaint filed on 8/7/2021. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the disputed product. Both of them are reluctant to appear before this Commission even after the receipt of notice. Therefore the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged. In the absence of contrary evidence we are of the opinion that both opposite parties are committed deficiency of service. Since within the warranty period the defect occurred but the opposite parties are not ready to repair or replace the disputed TV. It seems that they have failed to convince their part before this Commission. Hence the opposite parties being the manufacturer and the dealer is duty bound to ensure the smooth functioning of the product. They are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Considering the facts of the case, it revealed that the defect of the TV is not a minor in nature that is why the opposite parties was not initiative to take any steps to repair the same. Therefore 1st opposite party being the manufacturer is liable to replace the defective product with branch new one with fresh warranty. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings since opposite parties ought to have settled the dispute at the very outset.
5. Point No.3:-
In the result we allowed the complaint and direct as follows:-
1. The 1st opposite party is liable to replace the defective TV with a brand new one of the same specification and price with fresh warranty to the complainant.
2. Both parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization, towards compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant.
3. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred), towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 30th day of December, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd. 13/2/2021
Ext.A2 - Warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
