Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/19/221

Seethal Vijayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

          SRI.VIJU.V.R                        : MEMBER

CC.NO.221/2019 (Filed on : 15/07/2019)

ORDER DATED : 10/02/2023

COMPLAINANT

Seethal Vijayan,

Vijaya Mandhiram,

MMVRA 81 A

Valiyakunnu,

Attingal – 695101

(Party in person)

                                                   VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Managing Director,

VIDEOCON Industries Ltd, 14 KMS STONE, Aurangabad,

Paithan District, Aurangabad – 431 105 (India)

2. The Authorized Signatory,

Ideal Home Appliances,

Kaithamukku Junction,

3. The Authorized Signatory,

JBG Smart, Vattiyoorkavu, Nettayam,

•  

4. The Authorized Signatory,

247 Around, B-30 Sector-59, Noida – 201301

Uttar Pradesh, India

(OP1 Exparte)

(OP2 by Adv.Gayathri R Krishnan)

          ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The second opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The first opposite party was called absent and set exparte on 26/08/2019. The complainant filed petition to delete the opposite parties 3 & 4 from the party array and the same was allowed on 10/09/2021. Hence at present only opposite parties 1 & 2 are in the party array.

3. The case of the complainant in short is that on 12/09/2016, the complainant purchased a Videocon Led Tv from the second opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only). The said product was manufactured by the first opposite party. According to the complainant the product became defective on 14/05/2019 and the same was informed to the second opposite party. Then the second opposite party informed the complainant that as the manufacturing company is not in existence, the second opposite party has not providing any service on behalf of the first opposite party. Subsequently due to pressure from the side of the complainant, the second opposite party directed the complainant to approach another service centre namely JBG SMART and accordingly the complainant contacted the said service centre. Subsequently the technician came to the house of the complainant and after inspection of the product told that the problem is with the mother board of the TV. It was also told by the technician that for replacement of mother board, it will take five days. The technician also collected Rs.586/- (Rupees five hundred and eighty six only) towards service charges. Subsequent to that the opposite parties have not rectified the complaints of mother board or provided any service, even though the defect was occurred during the warranty period. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant approached this commission to redress his grievances. The second opposite party filed version. The second opposite party admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased a TV from the second opposite party. But the second opposite party contended that the second opposite party is only a dealer and selling the products of various companies for long years and all the products sold by the second opposite party are with the condition and being a dealer, the second opposite party is not responsible for any defect in the product. According to the second opposite party there is any damage or repair on the good sold, the liability of the same will go to the service centre as well as the manufacturer of the product and the second opposite party being a dealer is not responsible for such defects. According to the second opposite party this complaint is not maintainable and the complaint filed by the complainant against this opposite party is on an experimental basis and hence liable to be dismissed.

4. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 from the side of the complainant. The second opposite party though filed written version raising serious contentions, not filed an affidavit or documents to substantiate their contentions. The first opposite party being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the first opposite party.

5. Points for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order as to cost.

6.Heard. Perused records, affidavit and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were produced and marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of purchase bill. Ext.P2 is the copy of extended warranty card. Ext.P3 is the copy of service job card. Ext.P4 is the copy of e-mails. Ext.P5 is the service charge advance paid receipt. Ext.P6 is the copy of e-mail complaints. Ext.P7 is the copy of service delay reminder to company. As observed earlier the first opposite party being declared exparte, there is no evidence from the side of the first opposite party. The second opposite party though entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant and also raised serious contentions, the second opposite party failed to file an affidavit or supporting documents to substantiate the contentions raised in the written version. As there is no evidence adduced by the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.P1 to P7 we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We further find that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant was due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

               In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization/ remittance.

      A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be 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 Commission, this the 10^th day of February 2023.

                                                                                Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                              Sd/-   

VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

 

 Be/

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.221/2019

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Seethal Vijayan

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   -   Copy of purchase bill.

Ext.P2                   -   Copy of extended warranty card.

Ext.P3                   -   Copy of service job card.

Ext.P4                   -    Copy of e-mails.

Ext.P5                   -    Copy of service charge advance paid receipt.

Ext.P6                   -    Copy of e-mail complaints.

Ext.P7                   -    Copy of service delay reminder to company.

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibit                                         - NIL

 

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    PRESIDENT