Date of Filing: 12.03.2019
Date of Order: 19.07.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Monday the 19th day, of July 2021
C.C.No. 97/2019
Between
Ashok Chary Gottala S/o Venkataswamy,
Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: H.No. 9-1-33/A/1/AA/7, Prashanth Nagar,
Langer House, Hyderabad – 500008,
Cell : 9704673618
….Complainant
And
1. M/s Philips India Ltd,
Rep. by its General Manager, 8th floor,
DLF 9-B, DLF Cyber city, Sector 25,
DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon -122002, India,
Phone : - +91-124-4606000.
2. M/s. Mahalakshmi Electronics,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
3-6-369/B/5, Ground Floor,
Street No.1, Himayath Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana, 500029.
Ph.No. 040-66755333
….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : PIP
Counsel for the Opposite party No.1 : Manav Gecil Thoms
Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 : Absent
O R D E R
(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER on behalf of the bench)
1. The above complaint has been filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against the above Opposite parties for commission of deficiency in service on their part as such praying the district Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the TV in question with a Brand New One, award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs of the litigation; and other reliefs as it deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complaint, in brief, is that he purchased 48’ LCD T.V Philips from the OP.1 on 24.12.2018. Which was stated to have been fixed by the opposite party No.2 authorized Service Centre of opposite party No.1, on 24.12.2018 but on the same day, the said TV is stated to hve stopped functioning. As per the advice of the opposite party No1, the complainant states that he handed it over to the Opposite party No.2 for rectification of the issue, who is stated to have failed to rectify it. Inspite of several visits and requests, the OP.2 could not rectify and since then the said TV was with the opposite party No.2 Several reminders sent to the opposite party No.1 as to the resolution of the said issue but stated to have no avail. On approaching the National Consumer Helpline, who is stated to have issued notices to the opposite party No.1 resulting in it is stated a piece of advice was stated to have been rendered to the Complainant to approach the District Forum for Redressal of his grievance in the above matter. Accordingly, it is stated that the complainant has filed the above complaint praying the District Forum to grant reliefs as stated Supra.
3. The opposite party No.1 got filed its written version, through its authorized signatory denying the allegations made in the complaint except certain admissions made in its W.V. The opposite party No.1 states that the instant complaint is false, malicious and incorrect as such prays the District Commission to dismiss the complaint.
3.1. The opposite party No.1 raised objections as to that there is no consumer
dispute; and no unfair trade practice nor any deficiency in service on their
part in relation to the above matter.
3.2. The opposite party No.1 further states that the compensation of Rs.1.0 lakhs as claimed by the complainant is out of his malafides of intention and it should commensurate with loss or injury suffered by the complainant.
- 3 Technical problem in the TV in question is stated to have developed after an intervening period of 3 years.
- 4 Deputation of authorized Engineer having visited the complainant and checked the product in question could not rectify the alleged problem and subsequently stated that the complainant was advised to leave the product in question at their authorized service centre, i.e. opposite party No.2
- 5 For resolution of the issue, it is stated that the obligation for rectification of the issue in the said product lies on the opposite party No.2 on the basis of the contractual basis. Also stated that on approach of NCLT, the management of opposite party No.2 was suspended. As a result of which, the opposite party No.1 states that it stepped into the shoes of the opposite party No.2 and it is ready to resolve the problems .
- 6 In view of the above, the opposite party No.1 states that the instant complaint be dismissed.
4. During the course of enquiry, the opposite party No.2 neither appeared nor filed any affidavit or documents at any stage of proceedings conducted by the District Forum in connection with the above CC.
5. The complainant has filed Evidence Affidavit and marked the documents filed by him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in support of his pleadings and contents of the said Affidavit.
6. Written Arguments have been got filed by the opposite party No.1.
7. Heard the oral submissions made by the opposite party No.1 and perused the documents on record.
- Whether the complainant could prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7.1. The following are our observations and findings:
It is an admitted fact that the opposite party No.2 could not rectify the issue in the product in question and the same was left with the opposite party No.2 as per the instructions of the opposite party No.1. When the complainant could not get any response from the opposite party No.2, the obligation lies on the opposite party No.1 to resolve the said issue, being the principal of the opposite party No.2. It has distinctly been admitted in the written version of the opposite party No.1 that it is ready to settle the matter but as per the terms between the parties. But, the opposite party No.1 miserably failed to produce any documents to substantiate its pleadings made in its written version. It is settled law that mere pleadings without substantiating the same by not producing any document does not sustain in the eye of law.
7.2. Therefore, the exhibits marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 by the complaint proved the allegations made in the complaint and in regard to the reliefs claimed remained unrebuttable. As such the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay/do and the complainant is entitled as mentioned here under. 7.3/
7.3. In the result,
A.) we allow this complaint in part against OP.1, who is hereby directed to do the following:
- to replace the Product-TV in question with a Brand new of similar make and Model of same descriptions In case similar make and model of same TV is not available, The amount paid by the Complainant towards purchase of TV-in question, along with interest @ 12% p.a. be refunded to him
- to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for harassment meted to him
- to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this Litigation
B.) The complaint against the OP.2 is dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance: within 45 days from the date of service of this order in default, the above amount, except costs, shall bear 12 % of interest.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 19th day of July, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Copy of Complaint copy dt. 24.12.2018.
Ex.A2 – Copy of Call history
Ex.A3 –Complaint copy dt. 04.02.2019.
Ex.A4 – Copy of mail dt. 04.02.2019.
Ex.A5 – Copy of Written complain dt. 18.02.2019.
Ex.A6 – Copy of Philips mail copy dt. 12.05.2019.
Ex.A6 – Copy of Bill copy dt. 18.10.2015.
Ex.A7 – Copy of Warranty Card dt. 18.10.2015.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party :
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
