BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                                 : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                               : MEMBER

C.C. No. 387/2019 Filed on 01/11/2019

ORDER DATED: 30/10/2024

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a LED Videocon TV for Rs.19,000/- on 27/08/2015.  The TV carried 4 year warranty and one year additional warranty as per the onam offer.  On nearing completion of 4 years of purchase the display panel of the LEX TV showed complaint and on 25/08/2019 a complaint was registered with 2^nd opposite party and on the same day the 2^nd opposite party provided the phone number of the service centre and also registered a complaint with the service center which was confirmed by SMS message in complainant’s phone.  After that a call was received from the videocon service centre and they intimated the complainant that service personal will be coming to resolve the complaint of the TV within one week.   However after two weeks a service personal collected the details of a LED TV and took photograph of the TV and informed the complainant that they will return with the display panel within a week.  There was no response even after two months.  No communication from the service centre.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

2. Even though notice was send to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties.  Notice to 1^st opposite party returned as “unserved”.  The complainant filed a memo on 31/05/2022 for deleting the 1^st opposite party, hence 1^st opposite party was deleted.

3. The notice to 2^nd opposite party was served on 20/11/2019 and they have filed version.  The 2^nd opposite party is averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant is fully aware that the 1^st opposite party had become defunct and the proceedings are pending before the National Company’s Law Tribunal and therefore as per Sec.14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code the complaint could not be entertained before this Commission.  It is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party with the complainant had purchased a Videocon 32-inch LED TV for an amount of Rs.19,000/- on 27/08/2015.  It is also admitted that the 1^st opposite party had issued a warranty of one year and an extended warranty of four years.  The warranty had been issued by the manufacturer of the TV over which the 2^nd opposite party being a dealer has no direct or indirect role in the manufacturing process or the warranty coverage.  The complainant had purchased the TV of his own choice and free will and after being satisfied with the performance of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party had only displayed the TV.  It is admitted by the complainant that the manufacturer has an authorized service center and who have not being made a party to the complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party has taken a contention that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.  The service center is the one which proves services to the product and the 2^nd opposite party has no role in it.  The 2^nd opposite party has no authority whatsoever to inspect or even carry out any service of the products manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and the manufacturer themselves have appointed a service centre.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost. 

4. Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

5. Issues (i) & (ii): Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P3.  The 2^nd opposite party has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  No documents were produced from the side of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has filed argument note. The 1^st opposite party was deleted as per the memo filed by the complainant.  The main allegation raised by the complainant is that within the extended warranty period the display panel of the LED TV showed some complaints and he has intimated this complaint to the service center and a message regarding that was received by him.  Even though the complainant has alleged that the complaints were registered within the warranty period, he has not produced any evidence before this Commission to prove that the LED TV has got some complaints with regard to the LED panel.  The complainant has not even produced the message he has received from the service center regarding the registration of his complaint.  The 2^ndopposite party has took a contention of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the service center was not made a party in this complaint and the complainant has not taken any steps to implead the service center as one of the opposite party in this complaint. The complainant has also deleted the manufacturer of the product. The complainant has only made the dealer as a party in this complaint and also, he has not produced any evidence to prove that the LED TV was having some defect. A dealer alone can’t be held liable for the complaint of the LED TV in the absence of manufacturer and service centre.                                   

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  There will be no order as to cost.   

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th  day of October,  2024.

Sd/-

                                                P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR             : MEMBER   

 Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                           : MEMBER   

C.C.No.387/2019

    APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                       Sd/-

PRESIDENT