By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant is an Agriculturist. He purchased a LED Television Set on 24/10/2016 at a price of Rs.28,501/- from the first opposite party, which was manufactured by second opposite party. The second opposite party provided 3 years warranty for the same. At the time purchase first opposite party issued a warranty card to the complainant. While so, on 17/06/2018, the above mentioned television has become defective and the complainant approached to the 1st opposite party to repair the defect. But when the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for repairing the defects the 1st opposite party neglected him and misbehaved also. On several occasions, the complainant had to approach the 1st opposite party with the same complaint, but the first opposite party failed to rectify the defect. According to the complainant the defect of television is due to it’s manufacturing defect. The complainant and his family had faced many difficulties due to the defects of the TV. They couldn’t watch the World cup foot ball contest and daily news and they forced to go to neighbour’s house for watch TV and for that they had faced many difficulties and mental agony. The defects of the TV set occurred within 10 months after purchase and within the warranty period. The 1st opposite party cleared the defects once, but the same complaint had occurred again. The defects happened only due to manufacturing complaint. The above act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the television, i.e. Rs.28,501/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs. 5000/-.
3. On notice being sent, 1st Opposite party entered appearance and filed his version. 2nd opposite party failed to appear before the forum, hence declared him as exparte.
4. 1st opposite party filed version with the following contentions: 1st opposite party admits that the complainant purchased TV on 24.10.2016 manufactured by 2nd opposite party and it carries 3 year warranty and the complainant used the TV for a period of one and half year. When the complainant reported the matter, on 23.06.2018 the 1st opposite party registered the complaint and after that the technician of videocon, Mananthavady Service Centre, inspected the product and found that the panel was broken and informed the complainant the defect will cure within two weeks.
But the complainant unsatisfied with that and he came to the 1st opposite party’s shop with another man and made some disturbances and obstructions, then the 1st opposite party called the police and the police was intervened the matter and took them away from the shop. After that the 1st opposite party duly informed the matter to the Service Head of the Videocon and Sales Manager through e mail. The 2nd opposite party never misbehaved and never used any abusive words. There is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice happened from his part. The 1st opposite party is only a dealer and the manufacturer (second opposite party) is only the liable person for the defect of the product and the first opposite party have no liability to repair the so called defects. The responsibility to cure the defect is with the 2nd opposite party and its service centers. The complainant failed to implead the service center as a party. So the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points to be considered:-
1. whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the
Television?
2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and cost of
the proceedings?
6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of opposite parties, the 1st opposite party was examined as OPW-1 and Ext. B1 and B2 were marked.
7. Point No. 1:- The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a TV set from the 1st opposite party, which is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Product contain 3 year of warranty. But the warranty period itself it become defective and the opposite parties not taken any earnest steps to redressing his grievances. It is not in dispute that on 24/10/2016 the complainant had purchased the television from first opposite party at a price of Rs.28,501/- evidenced by Ext. A1, bill issued by the first opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the second opposite party is the manufacturer of the TV and they have provided 3 year warranty for the product evidenced from Ext.A2, Warranty Card. Ext. A3 is the user manual. According to the complainant the fault of the TV was due to its manufacturing defect.
8. On going through the evidence of this complaint, it is evident that both parties admit the sale of the television and defect occurred in the warranty period. The dispute is only with regard to the repairing of the T.V set. Regarding the warranty the conclusive evidence before the Forum is Ext. A2 warranty card which was issued by the 2nd opposite party and sealed and signed by the seller, 1st opposite party. In the warranty card, it is clearly mentioned that, “This scheme the LED TV comes with a warranty of three years i.e Original 1 year + Extended 2 years. Go ahead, enjoy our unmatched product quality and service experience in the years to come”. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot exonerate or escaped from their liability. We are of the views that the complainant is entitled to get the price of the TV. Since the defect has been occurred during the warranty period. opposite parties are deficient in the matter of rendering the service under the warranty they are bound to render.
9. Point No.2:- This point to be decided Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation claimed of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony suffered and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant is entitled to compensation for the mental agony suffered and for the costs of the proceedings. We feel that an amount of Rs.5,000/- for compensation and Rs.3000/- for cost would be sufficient to cover the above claims made by the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in partly, thereby the 2nd opposite party shall refund the price of the TV set i.e. Rs.28,501/- (Rupees Twenty Eight thousand Five hundred and one only) with 6% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. The complainant shall return the defective TV to the
2nd opposite party simultaneously. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost to the complaint within 30 days from date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of December 2019.
Date of Filing:29.06.2018.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant.:-
PW1. Binoy alias Scaria. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Mathai. K.O. Business.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. dt:24.10.2016.
A2. Videocon Extended Warranty offer Card.
A3. Owner’s Manual.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1(a). Copy of Daily Call Register (Page No.48)
B1(b). Copy of Daily Call Register (Page No.49)
B1©. Copy of Daily Call Register (One page)
B2(a) Copy of e-mail.
B2(b) Copy of e-mail.
B2© Copy of e-mail.
B2(d) Copy of e-mail.
B2(e) Copy of e-mail.
B2(f) Copy of e-mail.
B2(g) Copy of e-mail.
B2(h) Copy of e-mail.
B2(i) Copy of e-mail.
