IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                          Thursday the 01^st day of October, 2020.

                                      Filed on 07-08-2019

  Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.199/2019

   between

  Complainant:-                                                         Opposite party:-

Sri.Krishnanandan                                          1.   The Manager / Proprietor

Krishnanand House                                              DIGI PARK

Vandanam                                                            Pittappallil Agencies

Ambalappuzha                                                     Kochukalathil Plaza

Alappuzha                                                            S.N. Junction

(Party in person)                                                  Valanjavazhi, Ambalappuzha North

                                                                             (ex-parte)

                                                                        2.   Sri.Peter Paul

                                                                             Pittappallil, Managing Director

                                                                             Administrative Office

                                                                             Cattle Market Road

                                                                             Perumbavoor- 683542

                                                                             (ex-parte)

                                                                        3.   Sri.P.P.Ouseph

                                                                             Chairman

                                                                             Pittappallil Agencies

                                                                             Administrative Office

                                                                             Cattle Market Road

                                                                             Perumbavoor- 683542

                                                                             (ex-parte)

                                                                        4.   The Hon’ble Chairman

                                                                             M.D.& CEO

                                                                             Videocon Corporate Office

                                                                             Fort House, 2^nd floor, 221

                                                                             Dr.D.N Road, Fort,

                                                                              Mumbai, India

                                                                             (ex-parte)

O R D E R

SMT.SHOLY P.R (MEMBER)

       Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-

       The complainant had purchased a Videocon 32 inch LED TV model No.IV C 32 FOZA from the Ambalappuzha branch of Pittappallil agencies wide retail invoice No.25-S-1-2341 dated 11.9.2016, by paying Rs.16,000/-.  Even though there are available various brands of TV the complainant had purchased the above TV believing the words of the manager regarding the quality and performance of the said TV.  The manager also told that the said TV company offering an extended warranty of 2 more years in addition to the original 1 year warranty.  But as against the above promises the TV was not performing satisfactorily from the 1^st year of purchase itself.  When the complainant informed the problems, the service team had solved the same then and there.  However when the 1^st major complaint of the non functioning of the TV developed on 26.4.18, the complainant had informed the same immediately over phone and then met 1^st opposite party in person.  Since there was no response the complainant had brought the TV to the shop on 30.4.18.  After checking, the manager had informed the complainant that the MR Electronics, Ramjan Tower, Swami junction, Kaithavana, Kalarcode will rectify the problems and directed the complainant to take the TV back home.  The technicians of the said firm after checking the TV at the residence of the complainant on 30.4.18 told that to make the TV functioning one item had to be replaced and which will cost Rs.1,100/- and also directed the complainant to remit Rs.250/- as advance.  When the complainant told about the warranty period to the technician, he informed that the said item is not covered by warranty.  On consulting the manager, Pittappallil group also wanted to pay the amount.  Accordingly the complainant had to pay the amount of Rs.1100/- by 2 receipts.  Even after these repair the complainant had never got  the best performance from the TV.  On 16.4.19 the TV stop functioning and the complainant had informed the matter to the manager over phone and directly but the manager had not taken any action to rectify the problems and to make the TV functioning.  Thereafter on 27.5.19 the complainant sent a registered letter to opposite party 1 to take steps to find a suitable remedy.  Even though opposite party 1 had received the letter on the next day no steps have been taken for rectifying the problems to the TV.  The complainant also sent letters by registered post to all the opposite parties.  All the above letters received by the opposite parties except 4^th opposite party.  However till now no steps had been taken to make the TV in working conditions by the opposite party even during the warranty period.  In the above circumstance the complainant filed this complaint for realizing an amount of Rs.16,000/- with interest at the rate of 15%, compensation and cost by alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. 

Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this commission and that of opposite party 1 to opposite party 3 were served and notice to opposite party 4 was returned with endorsement “left”.  All the opposite parties were called absent hence they were set ex-parte. 

The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts.A1 to Ext.A9 (Ext.A7 is series of 4 nos.)  documents. 

2.    The points came up for consideration:-   

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to return an amount of Rs.16,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% from the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost from the opposite parties as claimed in the complaint?
4. Reliefs and costs?  

3.    Point No. 1to 3

For avoiding repetition of discussions of materials these 3 points are considered together.  The complainant filed affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint.  Ext.A1 is the invoice regarding the TV in question and Ext.A2 is the extended warranty offer card.  Ext.A3 and A4 are the receipts showing the amount received towards repair during warranty period of the said TV.  The other Exts. are the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and its acknowledgement cards and postal receipts.  The unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit coupled with Exts.A1 to A9 documents would establish that the complainant purchased one Videocon 32 inch LED TV from opposite party 1 and installed at the residence of the complainant.  According to the complainant he had purchased the said TV by believing the words of opposite party 1 regarding the quality and performance of the said model comparing with the various brands of TV available in the shop.  The opposite party 1 had also told that the company was offering an extended warranty of 2 more years in addition to the original one year warranty.  Ext.A2 would indicate that the LED TV of Videocon company offered an extended warranty for 2 years besides the original one year warranty to the product.  On the reverse side of Ext.A2 the applicability of said offer is limited for purchases done by customer between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016.  Admittedly the 1^st incident of the complaint affected to the said TV from the first year of purchase had been cured by the service team of opposite party 1.  However on 26.4.18 the TV in question became defective by non functioning and thereafter the complainant informed to the opposite party 1, there was no response on the part of the opposite party 1.  When the complainant had brought to the said TV to the opposite party 1, after checking he informed that the MR Electronics, Ramjan Tower, Swamy Junction, Kaithavana, Kalarcode will rectify the defects.  After checking the TV in question the technician of the said firm told that to make the TV functioning one item had to be replaced and which will cost Rs.1,100/-.  Even though the complainant told about the warranty the said technician informed that the said item was not covered by warranty.  Thereafter as directed by opposite party 1 the complainant had paid the amount and which can be seen from Ext.A3 and A4.  According to the complainant as per the terms of Ext.A2 the defects to the TV in question occurred within the period of warranty offered by the opposite parties.  The complainant had purchased said TV on 11.9.16 and as per Ext.A2 the warranty period existed till 10.9.19.    The pleadings and evidence including Ext.A3 and A4 documents would indicate that the complaint had occurred to the TV in question was within the period of warranty offered by opposite parties and therefore the opposite parties are committed unfair trade practice.  The complainant also swear in the affidavit and affirmed that on 16.4.2019 the TV in question stopped in functioning, but the 1^st opposite party had not taken any action to rectify the defect though it was informed to them.  Videocon company is a reputed company for manufacturing TV and other electronic products.   It was purchased by the complainant with his hard earned money for his enjoyment.  But the opposite parties were not heed to make any relief against the complaint affected to the TV in question as per the warranty condition and which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  However as the complainant had used the TV for at least 2 and half years we are of the opinion that  the complainant is not entitled to get the entire cost of the TV.  Complainant was also sought for compensation for the mental agony and financial loss.  In view of the prayer 1,3,4 in the complaint, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) as loss caused to the complainant for not repairing the TV in question and also as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant in this regard.  The complainant also entitled to realise an amount of Rs.1,100/- from the opposite parties.  Points answered accordingly.

4. Point No.4

In the result the complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms:-

1. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are also directed to pay R.1,100/- (Rupees one thousand and one hundred only) to the complainant.
3. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

The said order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to recover Rs.9,100/- (8000+1100) from the opposite parties 1 to 4 and their assets with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 01^st day of October,2020.

 Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member)

 Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1                -        Retail Invoice

Ext.A2                -        Extended warranty offer card

Ext.A3                -        Cash receipt dtd 30.04.2018

Ext.A4                -        Cash receipt dtd 01.05.2018

Ext.A5                -        Acknowledgement card

Ext.A6                -        Letter dtd 25.06.2016

Ext.A7 series       -        Acknowledgement cards (4 Nos.)

Ext.A8                -        Postal receips

Ext.A9                -        Registered post with A/D

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  Nil

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-