DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th  day of August2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  28/10/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member  

CC/154/2017

Krishnaprabha,

S/o T.Balan Nair,

Krishna House,

Karalmanna, Cherpulassery,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad District.                                                      -  Complainant

(By Party in person only)    

                                                                                 Vs

M/s Onida Mirc Electronics Ltd,

Onida House II, Mahal Industrial Estate,

Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri (E), Mumbaui – 400 093.

(Advs. Prasad.K & Rohith.K.S )

M/s Nandilath Agencies, - Opposite parties

Riyas Complex, Mele Pattambi,

Pattambi, Palakkad District.

(Advs.M.Radhika & S.Suprreetha)

M/s Adonis Electronics Private Limited,

Tharakandam Estate, Kurisupalli Road,

Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 015.

     (Advs. Prasad.K & Rohith.K.S )

                                                O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows.  On 25.03.2016 the complainant has purchased from the 2^nd opposite party a LED ONIDA LEO 39FD TV with one year’s warranty paying ready cash Rs.28,999/-.  During the warranty period the TV went out of order in January 2017 and on making complaint to Palakkad service centre, they stated that it is not a material problem.  Since the defect continued, on 10^th February 2017, the complainant again made complaint over phone.  Since there was no response, the complainant reported this matter at the Nandilath shop, Pattambi and after two months from the date of complaint, a new TV was brought on 11.04.2017 and it was installed on 22.04.2017.  The replaced TV also went out of order by 20.05.2017.  The new TV was replaced only after three months from the date of original TV having become out of order, as pleaded by the complainant.  According to the complainant, the opposite parties wilfully delayed the replacement to avoid the warranty period.  When the complaint was made over phone 2^nd opposite party’s service centre stated that the board of TV would be replaced but later they informed the complainant that only after payment of charges the defect can be remedied and the complainant paid Rs.7,950/- as demanded by the 3^rd opposite party and got the TV repaired and made it useful as the complainant was in dire need of the TV.  Complainant also pleads that if repairs have to be made during the warranty period the customer is not liable to make payment as per trade practice and it is only a manufacturing defect which 1^st opposite party is liable to set right free of charges during the warranty period; since opposite parties charged service charges from the complainant, it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Although lawyer notice was sent by the complainant to the opposite parties they did not give any reply.  According to the complainant there is also deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for producing and supplying defective product and all products manufactured are expected to have a minimum life as per rules.  The complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, dejection and loss due to unlawful trade practice and insufficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace a new TV, to refund the spare part plus service charges of Rs.7,950/- and pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the hardship, defame and loss suffered by the complainant.  Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

          Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties to enter appearance and filed their versions.

          In their version jointly submitted by 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties, they deny the statements of the complainant except those admitted.  According to them this complaint is baseless and has no legal standing.  The statements in the complaint that on 25.03.2016 for purchase of LED Onida LEO39FD TV Rs.28,999/- price was paid in cash to the 2^nd opposite party, in the lawyer notice dated.28.09.2017 sent to the opposite parties Rs.55,600/- was shown excessively which shows that without good faith and basis to cause difficulties to these opposite parties these statements were made.  Without clearly showing the date in 2017 January, damages occurred to the TV and to set right the damage, several times the service centre was contacted – these statements were falsely made, according to the opposite parties.  On 08.02.2017, 3^rd opposite party received the complaint as per which since there is one year warranty, on 11.04.2017 new TV was delivered and the same was installed for the complainant on 20.04.2017 free of cost.  Due to voltage fluctuations damages occurred to the new TV board which was convinced to the complainant at the time of servicing the same.  According to opposite parties, there is no replacement warranty to change the replaced TV, due to voltage fluctuations the damaged TV was serviced on 14.07.2017, for which recovering service charge is legally possible and after servicing on 14.07.2017, the said TV has been smoothly working without any complaint.  Hence 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties pray that complaint should be dismissed. 

          In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, that the complainant purchased the TV from this opposite party is admitted.  This opposite party, being only a dealer at the time of raising complaint, this opposite party informed the company authorities.  The liability to perform as per service conditions is on 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties and if there is any laxity 1^st and 3^rd parties alone are liable.  Therefore this opposite party contends that allegations raised by the complainant against this opposite party are false.  According to this opposite party, whenever customers complain their complaint would be informed to the company and no deficiency in service can be attributed to this opposite party in this case.  Hence complaint against this opposite party should be dismissed with cost.

          Complainant and 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties filed their affidavits.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked, Ext.A4 in series from the side of the complainant.  Both parties were heard. 

The following issues crop up in this case.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, the relief and remedy which complainant is entitled for?

Issues 1 & 2

          This complaint is filed by the complainant in this Forum to get compensation from the opposite parties for the mental dejection and loss due to unlawful trade practice and insufficiency of service committed by the opposite parties.  From Ext.A1 it is clear that complainant has purchased a LED ONIDA LEO 39FD TV on 25.03.2016 from the 2^nd opposite party with one year warranty and the purchase is seen admitted by the 2^nd opposite party.  On this TV having become out of order in January 2017 during the warranty period, a new TV was brought on 11.04.2017 as per tax invoice No.9900126780 dated.25.03.2017 marked as Ext.A2 which shows 40 PANORAMA LED TV was despatched on 10.04.2017 for the complainant.  The replaced TV also went out of order by 20^th May 2017.  Since the complainant was in dire need of the TV, he paid Rs.7,950/- charges demanded by the 3^rd opposite party and got the TV repaired and made it useful which is evident from Ext.A3 which shows for main PCB Rs.7,000/- and towards service charges Rs.950/- are charged from the complainant which amounts to commission of unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.  According to the complainant if any repairs have to be made during the warranty period the customer is not liable to make payment as per trade practice and it is only a manufacturing defect which the 1^st opposite party is liable to set right free of charges during the warranty period.  There is also deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for producing and supplying defective products and all products manufactured by reputed firms like the 1^st opposite party are expected to have a minimum life as per rules which is 2 years atleast.  It is also clear that the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, dejection and loss due to the brand new LED Onida TV having gone out of order within ten months of its purchase.  Although a new TV was installed for the complainant it also became out of order within one month of its installation and for setting right its defect, Rs.7,950/- was also charged by the opposite parties from the complainant.  Attending to a complaint about the first TV only in April, 2017, three months after it became out of order in January 2017, after the expiry of its one year warranty period and setting right the defect of the new replaced TV only in July 2017 around two months after it became out order only after collecting Rs.7,950/- for main PCB and service charges prove grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice having been committed by the opposite parties.  1^st & 3^rd opposite parties in their joint version contend that on 08.02.2017, 2^nd opposite party received complaint about the first TV and since there is one year warranty new TV was installed on 20.04.2017 for the complainant free of cost.  Due to voltage fluctuations damages occurred to the replaced TV board.  Since there is no replacement warranty to change the replaced TV due to voltage fluctuations, the damaged replaced TV was serviced on 14.07.2017 recovering from the complainant Rs.7,950/- which is legally possible, according to these opposite parties.   Hence complaint should be dismissed.  In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant purchased the disputed product from them was admitted.  2^nd opposite party also contends that, this opposite party is only a dealer and has informed the complaint of the complainant to the company authorities.  As per service conditions, the liability to perform is only on the part of 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties and if there is any deficiency in service, only 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties are responsible.  Hence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party no deficiency in service has occurred.  Therefore complaint should be dismissed with cost to this opposite party. 

          We have perused the affidavits and documentary evidences filed by the complainant and the opposite parties and observe that the complainant has purchased LED ONIDA LEO 39FD TV on 25.03.2016 with one year warranty which are admitted by the opposite parties.  We also understand that this TV became out of order in January 2017 and only after three months a  new TV – 40 PANORAMA LED TV – was installed on 22.04.2017 for the complainant by the opposite parties which has caused to the complainant a lot of mental agony as a result of non use of the brand new TV after the same became out of order within ten months of the date of its purchase and consequent wilful delay on the part of the opposite parties of about three months to replace the said defective TV to avoid the warranty period which demonstrates that unfair trade practice and deficiency in service are seen committed by the opposite parties.  We also understand that the replaced TV also became out of order by 20.05.2017 within one month of its installation which also proves unfair trade practice of supplying a defective TV to the complainant, is seen committed by the opposite parties; within one month of installation of “PANORAMA LED TV” it has become out of order and unusable shows commission of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as per Consumer Protection Act 1986.  As per the Act, in manufacturing and in supplying a product, if a deficiency has occurred, all the opposite parties are responsible for the said deficiency.  In this case also we observe that the 1^st opposite party by manufacturing, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties by supplying and distributing a TV with a defective “PCB” which is one of the main parts of the 40 PANORAMA LED TV which has become defective, opposite parties are seen committed deficiency in service; hence all the opposite parties are equally responsible.  Under the above circumstances, we view that gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are seen occurred on the part of the opposite parties which resulted in huge mental agony having been caused to the complainant as a result of delay on the part of opposite parties in replacing the defective brand new 1^st TV  and for repairing the replaced defective second TV, also recovering spare part and service charges by the opposite parties from the complainant for setting right the second replaced TV inspite of no fault being evident on the part of the complainant.  Thus the opposite parties deficiency in service an unfair trade practice are seen proved.    Hence complaint is allowed.

          We order the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties to be jointly and severally liable to refund to the complainant charges of Rs.7,950/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and fifty only) recovered from the complainant for repairing and setting right the 40 PANORAMA LED TV installed on 22.04.2017 for the complainant; which has become out of order in May 2017; in addition 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are also ordered to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) for mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) by way of cost of proceedings spent by him. 

      This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to 9% interest p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of August 2018.

     Sd/-

 Shiny.P.R

                      President 

                        Sd/-        

                      Suma.K.P

                       Member

          Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

            Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 -  Original retail invoice No.PTBY 5414 dated.25^th Mar 2016 issued by 2^nd opposite

              party to the complainant

Ext.A2 -  Original Tax Invoice No.9900126789 dated.25.03.2017  issued by ONIDA MIRC

             Electronics Limited to the complainant

Ext.A3 -  Original Tax Invoice No.00264 dated.14.07.2017 issued by 3^rd opposite party to

              the complainant

Ext.A4 series  -  Photocopy of a letter dated.29^th August 2017 sent for the complainant by

   P.N.Vinod, Advocate, Ottapalam to the Opposite parties, acknowledgement

   cards and postal receipt

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1    -  Krishnaprabha

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost

          Rs.2,000/-