(By Adv. Randhir Kumar.M.P & Shiju Kuriakose)
2. Supervisor/Technician - Opposite Parties
A.Tech Care
Desampati House, Kalvakulam,
Opposite Gopalakrishna Temple
Palakkad, Kerala, 678 001
Tel: 9072350825
(Exparte)
3. The Manager
Videocon Industries Pvt Ltd,
Plot No 248.Udyog Vihar, Phase 4,
Gurgaon,Haryana-122 015.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A., Member
1. Brief facts of the complaint.
The complainant purchased a Videocon 40 inch LED Television bearing model No.IVD40FZ manufactured by the 3rd opposite party from the 1st opposite party’s shop on 9th Nov 2015 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- Thereafter certain faults, developed in the Television set for which repeated complaints were made by the complainant to the opposite party. On 27th March 2018, the Television was given to the 2nd opposite party for repair, but they could not rectify the fault or provide a replacement. Due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony for which he is entitled to compensation. The Television has a warranty for a period of three years.
So the complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for replacement of the Television, Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the act of the opposite parties and Rs.10,000/- for the cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. Even though notice was served on the 2nd opposite party, they did not appear before the Commission and so OP2 was set exparte. OP1 entered appearance and filed their version.
3. Contention of the OP1 in their version
This 1st opposite party admits that the complainant purchased a 40 inch Videocon LED Television from the 1st opposite party on 9/11/2015. The complainant has not clearly stated the exact problem with the Television. If it is a manufacturing defect, then it has to be resolved by the Videocon Company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party is only a dealer of Videocon company and an unnecessary party in the complaint.
The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.
The Videocon company is the manufacturer of the Television and if any difficulty is caused to the complainant because of the defective Television, the company only is responsible and they are a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the first opposite party and the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and it has to dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
4. Complainant filed IA’s 8/2019 & 9/2019 to impleaded supplementary opposite party 3, The Videocon Company and to amend the complaint and it was allowed. Subsequently the 3rd opposite party was impleaded and notice send to them. Notice to OP3 returned stating “Door Locked”and it was deemed to be served and they were set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A3 marked. OP1 also filed proof affidavit. No documents were marked from their side and no witness was examined from both sides. Complainant filed notes of arguments and heard both parties.
5. Points for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
2.If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation ?
Points 1 & 2
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a 40 inch LED Television set from the 1st opposite party, which is manufactured by Videocon Company (3rd OP) on 9/11/2015. The 3rd opposite party had provided warranty for a period of 3 years to the Television set.
7.The complainant produced the Retail Invoice dated 9/11/2015 issued by the first opposite party showing the purchase of VIEOCONLED TV IVP40FZ for an amount of Rs.30,000/- which is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the warranty card showing 3 year warranty from the date of purchase.
8. As per the complaint, after few days of its purchase, certain faults developed in the functioning of the TV and it repeated several times. Even though the complainant had not stated the exact problem with the TV in the complaint, in chief affidavit he explained that after few days of purchase the TV set started to display pictures in the half portion of the screen and the other half was blackened.
9. The complainant’s contention is that he informed the 1st opposite party about the defects in the TV and as per their advice, it was given to the 2nd opposite party, the authorized service centre of Videocon company for repair. But the 1st opposite party is silent about these averments in the complaint. Anyhow, from Ext.A3 the job card issued by OP2, it can be seen that the TV set was “Taken to service centre on 27/3/2018.” From this it is clear that the TV set was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party A-Tech care for repair.
10. As per complainant’s contention, the 2nd opposite party examined the TV set and promised to return it within two weeks after doing the repair work. But they did not do this and the TV is still with the 2nd opposite party. Even though notice was served, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before the Forum. No contrary evidence is brought before the Commission. So from the evidence adduced, there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party in not returning the TV after repair.
11. Further the TV set is under warranty. So the manufacturer and dealer also have the liability to repair / replace the defective product. The dealer cannot wash off their hands merely by saying that the manufacturer is only responsible for the defect in the product. The dealer from whom the product was purchased has the responsibility to inform the manufacturer about the defects and take necessary steps to repair the defective part or if not possible replace it since the product is under warranty.
So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service and for the mental and physical strain suffered by the complainant when the TV became defective within the warranty period itself.
In the result complaint is allowed.
But the 3rd Opposite party- The Videocon company, is under liquidation. So it would not be proper to order repair/replacement after such a long period.
The complainant purchased the TV set on 09/11/2015 and used it for 3 years before entrusting with the 2nd opposite party for repair. So after deducting 10% depreciation per annum, the written down value of the TV will be Rs.23,490/-. Hence we direct .
1. The first opposite party to refund Rs.23,490/- with interest at 6% from 27/03/2018 till payment.
2.The 1st opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- for their deficiency in service and as compensation for the physical and mental strain suffered by the complainant and Rs.5000/- as cost of this litigation.
Once the payment is made, the first opposite party will have the right to claim the amount from the Insolvency Resolution Professional(IRP) by filing an application before them.
Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of February 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V.
President.
Sd/-
Vidya A. Member
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
Fair copy on : 17/03/2022.
Despatched on:
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Retail Invoice from K.H.Home Appliance No 4231 Dated 09/11/2015
Ext.A2 - Warranty card dated 09/11/2015
Ext.A3 - Job Card from Videocon Authorised Service Centre(M/S-A-Tech Care)
Exhibits from the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost: 5,000/-
