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. 136/2022 Filed on 16/04/2022

ORDER DATED: 27/12/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant states that he had purchased a new TV from the shop of the 2^nd opposite party for a price of Rs.26,000/- dated 16/02/2021.  The representative of the 2^nd opposite party has installed the above TV on 17/02/2021 at the residence of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party provided a warranty of one year for the TV model as well as extended warranty offer of one more year for which the complainant paid an additional amount of Rs.1000/- cash payment to the technician who installed the TV.  It is pertinent to mention that no receipt was issued for the payment of Rs.1000/- made towards the extended warranty.  TV set went faulty and stopped functioning on 10/02/2022 due to the defect occurred in the TV set.  Immediately, the complainant attempted to lodge an online complaint with the customer service center of 1^st opposite party,  but it could not be registered due to technical error.  The complainant sent a complaint on the same date i.e., on 10/02/2022 through his whatsapp mobile number to the mobile of 2^nd opposite party.  The representative of 2^nd opposite party contacted the complainant on his mobile number and informed him that it was a holiday being Attukal Temple Festivals at Thiruvananthapuram.  The complainant was assured by the representative of the 2^nd opposite party that his complaint would be lodged with the customer service center run by the 1^st opposite party on the very next day.  Later, it was communicated by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant through whatsapp that the complaint was registered on 12/02/2022 with the customer support center.  On 14/02/2022 the technician from the 1^st opposite party visited the house of the complainant and attended the faulty TV and informed the complainant that the TV panel was faulty and assured that it would be replaced within 7 days.  Even after 9 days, the opposite parties took no action to replace the faulty TV set and for this reason the complainant sent an email to the customer care service of the 1^st opposite party on 23/02/2022.  The 1^st opposite party replied to the above mail vide their mail dated 24/02/2022 and informed that “it would take 10 days of time to complete the repair/replacement process”.  The services being not prompt, the complainant sent another email to the customer care on 24/02/2022 and the customer care of the 1^st opposite party verbally replied over the mobile that the complaint was being looked into.  On 28/02/2022, the representatives of the 1^st opposite party visited the house of the complainant along with another old TV.  And replaced the faulty TV with the old TV of different brand/model that the representatives brought.  The replaced TV was demonstrated working, though, the replacement TV was not similar in brand of the one that the complainant purchased from the shop of the 2^nd opposite party and asked to be rectified.   Whereas, no.4 star rating was seen/found on the replacement TV.  These and other discrepancies were communicated to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant vide email dated 01/03/2022.  On 05/03/2022 the complainant received another email from the 1^st opposite party (M/s.Xioami Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,) stating that a replacement TV on the product was provided as well as refund.  And whereas, there was no refund given to the complainant at all.  All the claims were utter false and deceptive.  Under such facts and circumstances, the complainant has sent a further email on 06/03/2022 to the 1^st opposite party denying the facts mentioned by them in their earlier email.  The complainant has demanded refund and other claims from the opposite party vide the said email dated 06/03/2022.  The complainant sent a final Legal notice dated 14/03/2022 to the opposite parties through registered post acknowledgment due and called upon the opposite parties to pay and refund the amount paid by the complainant along with the interest.  The opposite party have not replied it, hence this complaint.     

After accepting the notice the opposite parties were absent.  Hence opposite parties were set ex parte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.A1 to A13 marked from the side of complainant.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:- We perused relevant documents on record.  It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant has purchased the TV from 1^st opposite party on 16/02/2021 for an amount of Rs.26,000/-.  As per the warranty card the TV had 1 year warranty and 1+1 year extended warranty on display panel.  As per Ext.A3 is the complainant registered a complaint regarding the non functioning of the TV was on 10/02/2022.  The defect of the TV was found within the warranty period.  Ext.A4 is a mail sent to the 2^nd opposite party regarding the damage of the TV.  Ext.A5 is the replay sent by 1^st opposite party to the complainant for repairing the TV.  Ext.A6 is the mail of complainant to 1^st opposite party stating that TV is not functioning.  Ext.A7 is the mail of complainant to 1^st opposite party stating that the newly purchased faulty TV has been replaced with one old TV and that TV is not a new one similar to the brand which was purchased from 1^st opposite party and the complainant requested to refund the purchase price of Rs.26,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Ext.A8 is the reply sent by 1^st opposite party to complainant.  Ext.A9 is the mail sent to 1^st opposite party by complainant to refund the purchase price with interest and compensation.  Ext.A10 is the legal notice sent to 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A11 & A13 is the copy of Whatsapp message received from 2^nd opposite party.

The TV became damaged within the warranty period.  Then the opposite parties had replaced the TV and the replaced TV is not similar to the brand of purchased from 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties had not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.  In the above discussion we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.         

In the result complaint is allowed.  We directed the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Only) as the price of TV and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)  as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.  After compliance of order the complainant shall hand over the replaced TV to 1^st opposite party.              

  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 Court, this the 27^th day of December,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 136/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT