By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint preferred under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the complaint in brief:-
On 04.03.2020, the Complainant had purchased a LED Smart Television for Rs.39,900/- from the first Opposite Party, manufactured by the second Opposite Party. The TV was installed in the house of the Complainant on 17.03.2020 by the first Opposite Party. On using the TV for some months, its display was got damaged and it was entrusted to the first Opposite Party on 26.09.2020. As the TV was not able to be repaired, it was forwarded to the second Opposite Party by the first Opposite Party. The TV was repaired and handed over to the Complainant after 148 days. But after some days, ie on 06.04.2021, the TV was again got damaged with the same complaint as before and hence, it was handed over to the first Opposite Party. Then the first Opposite Party forwarded the TV to the second Opposite Party and after repairs the TV was handed over to the Complainant on 10.10.2021, ie after 187 days. But after a few days, the TV was again got damaged with the same complaint and as such it was handed over to the first Opposite Party on 22.11.2021. At that time, as the TV was frequently getting damaged, the first Opposite Party had offered to replace the TV with a new one or to refund the price of the TV to the Complainant. But, till date the Opposite Parties have not kept their words. A low quality product with manufacturing defect was sold to the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Parties is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainant had purchased the TV paying a high price for the purpose of attending online classes to his children. As the TV was frequently got damaged, his children could not attend the classes on many occasions, which have adversely affected the education of the children. Moreover, for months and months, the Complainant and his family could not see programs in the TV. Hence this complaint with prayers
- To direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.34,900/- being the price of the TV with 12% interest
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss, injury and mental agony and
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of this complaint.
3. Upon getting notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before the Commission and filed their versions.
4. Contents of the version filed by the first Opposite Party in brief:-
It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased the Smart TV from the first Opposite Party. It is also admitted that the TV was got damaged and returned it to the Complainant after repairs. The damage of the TV was caused due to the negligent use of it by the Complainant. The offer of guarantee was given by the second Opposite Party, as it was manufactured by them. The first Opposite Party had only sold the TV but no guarantee was given to the Complainant by the first Opposite Party. Moreover, as a seller of the product, the first Opposite Party had entrusted the TV to the second Opposite Party and it was got repaired and returned to the Complainant. So there has not been any unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the first Opposite Party and if there is any damage or defects to the product the product is to be replaced by the second Opposite Party. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of the first Opposite Party.
5. Contents of version filed by the second Opposite Party in brief:-
The second Opposite Party had attended the complaint, the very next day when the complaint was registered. The second Opposite Party had replaced the TV with a new one as the defect of the TV was not able to be cured. The TV was replaced within two months of registering the complaint. It was not after 148 days as stated in the complaint. The delay was caused due to COVID pandemic restrictions. The allegation of the Complainant that the TV got damaged again on 06.04.2021 is not true. The statement that as per Job No.1280551 the TV was handed over to the Complainant after curing the defects is not true. The Job number 1280551 was closed after convincing that the TV was functioning with no complaint and customer satisfaction was recorded by the Complainant. The statement of the Complainant that the complaint of the TV was cured and the TV was handed over to the Complainant only after 187 days is false. Job number 1336033 was attended and on seeing display fault, the second Opposite Party had offered the Complainant to replace the TV with a new one but the Complainant had not responded to it. The second Opposite Party had sold a good quality TV to the Complainant. There has not been any willful negligence from the part of the second Opposite Party. As the Complainant alleges, there has not been any unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the second Opposite Party. Still the second Opposite Party is ready to replace the defective TV with a new one with warranty and hence job number 13306033 has not been closed. So the Complainant has no right to get relief as prayed for. Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Ext.A1 and A2 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. Chief affidavits were filed also by the first and second Opposite Parties and they were examined as OPW1 and OPW2 respectively and the complaint was finally heard on 09.06.2023.
7. Considering the facts of the case, Commission raised the following points for deciding the issue.
- Whether there has been any unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Relief and Cost..?
8. Point No.1:- The main allegation of the Complainant is that the Smart TV purchased from the first Opposite Party which was manufactured by the second Opposite Party, was got damaged thrice. But the Opposite Parties failed to repair it or replace it on time, but delayed very much and as such, the children of the Complainant and his family could not use the TV for attending online classes and watching TV programs. This is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant seeks refund of price of the TV, compensation and cost. But the contention of the first Opposite Party is that he had only sold the TV; warranty/guarantee was given by the second Opposite Party and if any relief is sought by the Complainant it is to be given by the second Opposite Party and as the product seller, he has no liability or responsibility. On the other hand, the contention of the second Opposite Party is that as the defect of the TV was not able to be cured, the TV was replaced with a new one. He also admits that the TV was replaced after two months of registering the complaint, the delay in replacement was caused due to the restrictions prevailed during COVID Pandemic situation. Another contention of the second Opposite Party is that Job No.1336033 was admitted by them and as the defect could not be cured, the second Opposite Party had offered to replace the TV with another new one, but the Complainant did not positively respond to it. The second Opposite Party also stated that they are manufacturing and selling high quality products and contents that still they are ready to replace the defective TV with another new one. But the PW1/(Complainant) in cross-examination has deposed that he has lost his confidence in the quality of the product of the Opposite Parties and hence he insist refund of the price of the TV and to get other relief.
9. From the facts of the complaint, version, oral evidences of PW1, OPW1 and OPW2, it is evident that the Smart TV purchased for Rs.34,900/- (in the complaint the price of the TV is seen stated as Rs.39,900/- but as per Ext.A1 document the actual price is Rs.34,900/-) from the first Opposite Party manufactured by the second Opposite Party was got damaged due to the defect in display more than once, which was replaced the first time, and also the second Opposite Party agrees to replace it with another new TV as the same complaint occurred again. According to the Complainant, the same defect has been happened thrice which is due to the manufacturing defect and low quality of the product. Actually the complaints of the Smart TV are admitted by the first and second Opposite Parties. It is also a fact that there has been undue delay in rectifying the defect or replacing the TV within a reasonable time. The second Opposite Party has deposed in oral evidence that they had got complaint from the Complainant in respect of the TV on 26.09.2020, 06.04.2021 and on 22.11.2021 during warranty period and also admitted that they had once replaced the TV and now also they are willing to replace the defective TV with a new one. It is the admitted fact that they TV had warranty for a period of three years. Second Opposite Party also stated in oral evidence that “smart TV Bbncp¶p. Net connection FSp¯v ]cn]mSnIÄ ImWm³ ]äpw. ]cmXn h¶ kabw Ip«nIfpsS hnZym`ymkw online Bbncp¶p”. From the above statement of the second Opposite Party and the circumstances of the case it is obvious that the damage of the TV has adversely affected the education of the children of the Complainant and his family members could not see the programs in the TV which might have caused mental agony, loss and injury to the Complainant and his family. So there has been unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the second Opposite Party. It is quite natural that the confidence of the Complainant in a defective product on getting it frequently damaged shall be lost and hence the Complainant may not be blamed for claiming refund rather than replacement of the product again. So Point No.1 is proved against the second Opposite Party.
10. Point No.2:- There has been unfair trade practice/deficiency in service which has caused mental agony, loss and injury to the Complainant and his family and as such, the Complainant has the right to get the relief as prayed for, but the compensation and cost of the complaint prayed for are seen exorbitant. In our opinion it is fair to grant an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of this complaint.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the second Opposite Party is directed to
- Refund Rs.34,900/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) being the purchase price of the defective smart TV with 8% interest from the date of this complaint to the Complainant
- Pay Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony, loss and injury to the Complainant and
- Pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint to the Complainant.
This Order shall be obeyed by the second Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the above amounts will carry interest @8% per annum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of June 2023.
Date of Filing:-21.01.2022.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Yasar. V. P. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Rajan. K. P. Business.
OPW2. Pranav. P. S. Field Service Technician.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. Dt:04.03.2020.
A2. Copy of Warranty Card.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
