IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 53/2022 (filed on 10-03-2022)
Petitioner : Sajan M.V.
Muriangoth (H)
Manjoor P.O.
Pin – 686 603.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) Twins Electronics,
Kuruppanthara,
Manjoor P.O.
Pin- 686 603.
(2) Abaj Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No.644, A+ Ghumasvadu
Road, Maje Ghumasan
Taluka –kadi District – mahsana,
Gujarath – 382705.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a TV by name Treeview on 25-08-2021 from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.34,500/-. After 70 days of purchase, the TV stopped working and the complainant was intimated to the first opposite party. After repeated complaints, a technician from the service centre came and replaced the Board of the TV. When the TV was used after the repair, it was found that the Board replaced is not suitable for the TV. The TV is of 50 inch and having 2 GB memory. But the replaced board is of 55 inch and having 1 GB memory. When this fact was reported to the opposite party, they promised to change the Board. But no action was taken by the opposite parties and not even answering the phone calls from the complainant. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed for getting relief for the sufferings.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exts.A1 to Ext.A5.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Point No.1 and 2.
On going through the complaint and proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant had purchased a TV by name Treeview on 25-08-2021 from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.34,500/-
Ext.A5 is the tax invoice dtd.25-08-2021 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant for the purchase of the TREEVIEW LEDTV 50 SMART 4K UHD for an amount of Rs.25,703.13. Ext.A4 is the warranty card issued by the first opposite party for twelve months for the TV. Ext.A2 is the photo of the Board of the TV having inscription 2GB. Ext.A3 is the photo of the replaced board of the TV having description model 55, memory 1 GB.
From the above discussed findings, it is clear that when the complaint was reported to the first opposite party, the Board of the 50 inch TV having 2GB memory was replaced with a Board of the 55 inch TV and having 1 GB memory.
Section 2(37) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 defines product seller.
Section 2 (37 ) “Product Seller” in relation to a product, means a person who, in the course of business, imports, sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains, or otherwise is involved in placing such product for commercial purpose and includes-
- a manufacturer who is also a product seller; or
- a service provider,
but does not include –
- a seller of immovable property, unless such person is engaged in the sale of constructed house or in the construction of homes or flats;
- a provider of professional services in any transaction in which, the sale or use of a product is only incidental thereto, but furnishing of opinion, skill or services being the essence of such transaction;
- a person who-
(I) acts only in a financial capacity with respect to the sale of the product:
- is not a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, direct seller or an electronic service provider;
- leases a product, without having a reasonable opportunity to inspect and discover defects in the product, under a lease arrangement in which the selection, possession, maintenance, and operation of the product are controlled by a person other than the lessor;
The first opposite party being the product seller failed to rectify the defects of the TV within the given warranty period. The act of the first opposite party is deficiency in service on their part. Hence Point No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant. The complaint is allowed and we pass the following Orders.
- The first opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of the TREEVIEW LED TV 50 SMART 4KUHD of the complainant into a perfect working condition free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,703/- to the complainant.
- The first opposite party is directed to give Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the sufferings of the complainant with cost Rs.1,000/-. If the Order is not complied as directed, the amounts will carry 6% interest per annum from the date of this Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of August, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of board model No.IND5004ST
A2- Photo of the board of the TV having inscription 2GB.
A3 - photo of the replaced board of the TV having description model 55, memory 1 GB.
A4 – Copy of warranty card issued by Treeveiw
A5 – Copy of tax invoice issued by 1st opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
