By. Sri. A. S. Subhagan, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- On 03.10.2021, the Complainant had purchased a Mi TV from Amazon.in. A two year warranty on the display panel was added to the manufacture’s one year product warranty. The television display began to show display lines on its sides in October 2023 and in November, it completely ceased working. The TV was then confiscated by the employees of service centre, after the Complainant had instituted a complaint there. After examination, they concluded that as the display could not be fixed, they demanded a sum of Rs.27,000/- for replacing the display unit, which comes to approximately three quarters of the TV’s original price. Additionally, they advised replacing it with a different company’s product which would cost Rs.17,000/- and be compatible with the Mi TV, which is more nearly half of the original cost of the TV. The TV’s original cost was Rs.35,999/-. The TV was purchased for use for a long time. The additional repair costs come nearly equal to the cost of the TV. The issue of the TV was brought up during warranty term. The Complainant withdrew the service centre’s request for repair. The Opposite Parties are attempting to deceive the Complainant with misleading information. The Complainant had been emailing the support centre about the problem, but all have gotten back are usual AI generated responses. The Opposite Party had not mentioned anywhere costs of repairs and replacement in any of the product information. Since the problem arose during warranty period, the Opposite Parties are obliged to provide a free repair. Hence this complaint with prayers to get the cost of TV Rs.35,999/-, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of this complaint Rs.10,000/-.
3. Inspite of summons, the Opposite Parties did not appear before the Commission and hence they were set ex-parte.
4. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from his side. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and the complaint was heard on 13.08.2024. In oral evidence, the Complainant had reiterated all his allegations in the complaint. Ext.A1, which is the tax invoice of the product reveals that the Complainant had purchased the TV for Rs.35,999/- from Amazon.in on 03.10.2021. Ext.A2 reveals that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.2 with the complaint of the TV, Ext.A3 is the Communication made by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
5. On the service record issued by the Opposite Party No.2 (Ext.A2) it is seen recorded by the Opposite Party No.2 that “Symptoms observed by Engineer, customer not satisfied with repair cost out of warranty; estimation not approved by customer”. The Complainant states that the estimated cost of repairs comes nearly to the original cost of the TV and the Opposite Parties are liable to cure the defect of the TV free of cost in warranty period and states that the Opposite Parties have cheated the Complainant. The prayer of the Opposite Party is to get refund of the cost of TV, compensation and cost of the complaint.
6. The Opposite Party had the opportunity to appear before the Commission and contest the case. But they did not appear and contested. From the available records and evidences adduced by the Complainant, we find that the TV was purchased on 03.10.2021 as per Ext.A1 and it was handed over to the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.11.2023 due to malfunctioning, as per Ext.A2. The date of purchase of the product and the date of handing over of the TV evidences that the Complainant could not use the new smart TV even for a total period of two years. Every product should have a reasonable period of satisfactory and successful use, considering the nature and cost of the product. In this case this has not been fulfilled. The Opposite Parties have failed to provide satisfactory after sales service to the Complainant which is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. So, there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties for which they are liable to compensate the Complainant giving refund of the cost of the TV, compensation and cost of the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to
- Refund Rs.35,999/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Only), being the cost of the TV,
- Pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) towards compensation for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and
- Pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint.
The above amounts shall be paid jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order till payment.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16th day of October 2024.
Date of Filing:- 15.03.2024.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Prajeesh. K. Beat Forest Officer, Makkiyad,
Forest Station.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice/Bill of Supply/Cash Memo. Dt:03.10.2021.
A2. Service Record. Dt:20.11.2023.
A3. Email Communication. Dt:03.12.2023.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
