DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 20th day of December 2023
CC.180/2023
Complainant
Muraleedharan. A,
Aksharam (HO),
Kurungattilida,
Makkada. P. O,
Kakkodi (Via),
Kozhikode - 673611
Opposite Parties
- The Store Manager,
Reliance Difital,
Door No. 1238/E/F/G,
Ground & first Floor,
Yas Tower, East Nadakkavu,
Eranhipalam. P. O,
Neat CH Juma Masjid,
Wayanad Road,
Kozhokode – 673006
- Customer Care Manager,
Reliance Retail Ltd,
Shed No. III & 120,
Indian Corpn Godown,
Dapode, Bhiwandi, Thane,
Maharashtra – 421302
- BPL Ltd,
Dynamic House, No.64,
Church Street, Bangalore,
Karnataka - 560001
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 21/03/2022, the complainant purchased a 50 UHD smart BPL brand LED Television, model 50U-A4 311 (126cm) from the first opposite party paying Rs. 33,998/- as the cost of the Television including 2 year extended warranty. On 21/03/2023 at about 8 PM while watching the programme, the television suddenly started malfunctioning. The screen became dark and nothing would be viewed and only the audio was functioning. On the same night, the complaint was reported to the customer care of the first opposite party. On the next day morning, a technician came and inspected the television and in the afternoon it was informed that the warranty could not be claimed since it was a physical damage. The complainant could not see any damage outside the television and in fact something went wrong inside and the left bottom corner was getting heated up and also the high temperature was causing melting of the left button corner of the screen.
- Though the complainant contacted Mr. Bijesh, the Reliance ResQ Team Area Manager, Kozhikode, he could not receive any satisfactory response from his end. The complainant visited the customer care of the first opposite party and they also informed that nothing could be done. Further he contacted Sri. Sujith, the state head of Reliance Digital ResQ Team, but it was also in vain. Now they are not attending his phone call. Almost 50 days had been completed since the issue occurred. He is mentally disturbed by the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party. Hence the complaint claiming refund of the price of the television along with the expenses incurred towards the court proceedings.
- The notices issued from this Commission were duly served on the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not respond to the notices and hence set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 was marked.
- Heard
- Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission requesting for refund of the price of the television. His grievance is that the television purchased by him became defective during the warranty period and the opposite parties neglected to address his concerns over the television despite repeated requests.
- PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the invoice dated 21/03/2022.
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. They have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the document produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Ext A1. Gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in attending the grievances of the complainant with regard to the TV stands proved.
- The prayer is for refund of the price of the television. But the complainant could not show that the television is having any inherent manufacturing defect. Even the complainant has no specific allegation in this regard. There is no technical/expert report to show that the television in question suffers from any inherent manufacturing defect. So the prayer for refund of the purchase price cannot be allowed.
- However, the complainant is entitled to get the television repaired under the warranty. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has resulted in gross mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant and he was not able to enjoy the television. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
- Point No.2 :- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.180/2023 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to service/repair the television of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charge for such service/repair.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
c) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
d) No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 20th day of December, 2023.
Date of Filing: 15/05/2023
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Invoice dated 21/03/2022.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Muraleedharan. A, (Complainant)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
