SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,seeking  direction against  OPs to pay Rs.60,000/-  as compensation towards mental stress sustained by complainant for the deficiency  of service from the part of  OPs.

 Complaint in brief :-

    On 16/10/2021, complainant purchased M15x43 inch Android TV from 2^nd OP and on 2022 October,   TV became complaint and  complainant sought  service of 1^st OP and technician perused and  board was replaced accordingly.  But unfortunately TV never worked again and by the time the warranty became exhausted.  This was again  intimated and demanded service by complainant, which all went in vein and complainant suffered mental agony and hardship.  Hence this complaint.

         After filing the complaint, notice was issued to OP and the OP entered appearance commission and  filed their version . After the version complainant filed impleading  as well as amending petition in order to array supplemental  OPs 2&3.  After, the commission sent notice to supplemental OPs 2&3.  The notice returned with an endorsement “ left without instruction”.  Hence the supplemental OPs 2&3 are declared as exparte.

Version of  OP in brief:

    The 1^st OP contended all  averments  and denied except those  specifically  admitted .  The 1^st OP contended that  the product  was found to have suffered from customer induced/physical damage.  The technician of the authorized service center of 1^st OP duly advised to repair the product  but the complainant was not ready to repair the  same by paying the required charge.  The 1^st OP admitted that the product was just within the warranty  but the same cannot be covered under warranty because automatic presumption  of manufacturing defect  in the product without report  of  expert is not permissible and also remedy may not be  granted without  pointing  to  manufacturing defect.  The complainant was duly advised by the technician of the  authorized  service center of 1^st OP that the  panel of the  product is damaged due to the negligence of complainant.  Since the customer induced damage is not covered under warranty terms . Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to  A4.   Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by 2^nd OP dtd.20/10/2021,Ext.A2 is the shipment tax invoice issued by 2^nd OP,  Ext.A3 is the  print out of  watsapp message and Ext.A4 is the pen drive(contains the  conversation between complainant and OP). The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  No oral or documentary evidence from the side of OPs.

   Let us have a clear glance in to the evidences before the commission in order to answer the  issues raised.  Both issues are considered together for the commission.

   As the parties to the case disputed with regard to deficiency in service, the commission looked into the documents produced by complainant as there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of  any of the OPs.  The dispute is that the TV which the complainant purchased become defective  within the warranty period.  On the perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that warranty provided for one year and 2 year warranty for panel and the purchase  date was  21/10/2022.  As per the complaint, complainant contended that before the warranty expiration his panel board became complaint and  this defect was pointed by the   technician of  3^rd OP and the same was replaced.  But even after the replacement of  panel board, the TV remained defective.  The 1^st OP, being the manufacturer, contended that the TV got defective by owner’s self inducement but no evidence produced to substantiate the claim.  As per Ext.A3 it is seen that 1^st OP replied to  complainant that the repair request has submitted,  successfully hence it is apparent that the TV manufactured by 1^st OP has some complaint.  Moreover, 1^st OP contended that the warranty period was exhausted  but as per Ext.A1, the panel of product has got 2 year warranty and the purchase date was 21/10/2021 and also the reply to repair request on 16/10/2022 as per Ext.A3.  Hence the defective part is under the warranty coverage.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and during the cross examination  he deposed that all OPs consented  to him that a new TV will be provided, and also deposed on the specific question that whether there is any evidence produced to show the defect, that Exts.A3&A4 produced to show the same.  There is no expert repot produced by complainant.  Even then  Exts.A3&A4 is subject to proof.  , Ext.A4 contains the conversation of defects sustained.  Anyhow, the commission came into a conclusion  on the basis of Exts.A1,A3&A4, there is deficiency in service from the part of OPs as the defect arise within the warranty period and hence complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost also.   

         In the result the  complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties are   directed  either to cure the defect of  TV of free of cost or to pay the amount of Rs.28999/- towards the  purchase price of TV and also pay Rs.10,000/-  as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation  to the complainant severally and jointly within  30 days from the date of  receipt  of this order .    In default of  rectifying the defect of TV of free of cost, the opposite parties are severally and jointly liable to pay the  purchase price of TV ie Rs.28999/-  to the complainant, and is liberty to take back the TV from the complainant after the payment,   failing which the  complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:                

A1-Tax invoice

A2- Shipment tax invoice

A3- print out of wats app message

A4- pen drive

PW1-Girieesh.K.V-complainant.

 Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                               

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR