IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

                     Friday the 05th      day of   June, 2020

                               Filed on 28.07.2018

Present

1.Sri.Santhoshkumar.S. Bsc.LLB(President) 

2.Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)

                                                  In

                                      CC/No.208/2018

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                            Opposite parties:-

Sri. Mostin Mathew                                      1.       Angel Agencies                                 

S/o Late Mathew                                                   East of Court Junction

Leela Sadhanam House                                          Cherthala

Kanichukulangara.P.O                                            Represented by its Authorised

Cherthala                                                                Signatuary

(Adv.P.Anuroop)

                                                                   2.        Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd (Videocon)

                                                                              15KM Stone, Aurangabad

                                                                              Paithan Road, Chitegaon

                                                                              Paithan Maharashtra-431105

                                                                              Represented by its Authorized

                                                                                   Officer.

                                                                   3.        Videocon, Head Office

                                                                              Fort House, 2^nd Floor, 221

                                                                              Dr. D.N.Road, Fort Mumbai

                                                                              Pin. 400001, Represented by its

                                                                              Authorized Officer.                                    

                                                     O R D E R

SMT. SHOLY.P.R(MEMBER)

This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

          Brief case of the complainant is as follows:-

          Father of the complainant Mr.Mathew.K.S , Leela Sadanam house, Kanichukulangara .P.O, Cherthala was purchased a Videocon Brand LED TV with a product description of 32VJWHH2FA on 27/10/2014 as per the invoice no. 7459 from 1^st opposite party.  For the purpose of promoting the sale, the 1^st opposite party falsely represents that the product is covered under the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) for a period commencing from 27.10.2015 to 26.10.2019 with the assistance of 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party issued the Annual Maintenance Contract to the complainant which is undertaken by the 2^nd opposite party.  It is further assured by the 1^st opposite party  that they are the authorized dealer of 3^rd opposite party hence all defective components shall be replaced with compatible working parts within the Annual Maintenance Contract period.  On believing the above words of the 1^st opposite party the complainant purchased the product for Rs. 21,000/-(Twentyone thousand).  Accordingly the complainant is entitled to get benefit to the Annual Maintenance Contract till 26-10-2019.  In the mean time, on 15.09.2015 father of the complainant was expired.  The complainant used the LED TV in accordance with the instruction give in the instruction manual.  Matter being so from the first week of May 2018 onwards the said LED TV has no proper display.  Since the product has covered under the Annual Maintenance Contract till 26/10/2019 the complainant approached 1^st opposite party and informed and submitted the defect of said TV on 16/5/2018 to the 1^st opposite party but they failed to render any service which is required to maintain as per the contract in relation to service.  In the above circumstance causing great mental agony and injury to the complainant, he caused to issue a lawyers notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and they accept the same and 1^st opposite party made a false reply, but they failed to perform as per the notice.  Hence this complaint filed for directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to  replace the above said defective LED TV and also for allowing compensation and cost of the proceedings.

          In response to the notice served by this Forum the 1^st opposite party filed version seeking to exonerate  them, opposite party 2 was called absent, set exparte.   Repeated notice to the 3^rd opposite party retuned unserved with the endorsement left.  In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party it is also stated that opposite parties 2 and 3 has already closed their business.  Hence this Forum decided to proceed the matter against opposite party 1 only.

2.      In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

          1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  on

             the part of the opposite party1?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs sought for in the

              complaint?

          3. Reliefs and costs?

          On the side of the complainant he filed proof affidavit and produced 7 documents taken as evidence of the complainant. The above documents got marked as Ext.A1 to A7.  Even though the opposite party1 filed written version for defending the complaint he could not disprove the allegation leveled against them in the complaint and proof affidavit filed by the complainant when he mounted in the box.  Hence exparte evidence was recorded and heard the complainant.

          3. Points No. 1 and 2

          For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together.  Admittedly the complainant’s father purchased a Videocon Brand LED TV with a product description of 32 VJWHH2FA on 27..10..2014 from the 1^st opposite party.  It is also admitted that the product is covered under the Annual Maintenance Contract(AMC) for a period from 27.10.2015 to 26.10.2019 under which the 1^st opposite party assured that all the defective components should be replaced with compatible working parts within the said period.  Complainant was registered by the complainant for curing the defects occurred in the said TV on May 2018  which was also admitted by the 1^st opposite party.  On perusal of Ext.A2 and A3  it is clear and substantial evidence  of offering Annual Maintenance Contract for a period of 5 years ie, from 27/10/2014 to 26/10/2019.  More over it is understand that the 2^nd opposite party is an authorized service partner for Videocon.  3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said product.  Here in the instant case the 1^st opposite party categorically stated that the godown of the customer service centre was sealed by Bank authorities and thereby closed their business.  This cannot be accepted as a valid reason or defence for non performance of the 1^st opposite party regarding the grievance of the complainant.  There is no dispute regarding the defect occurred to the TV.  It is the duty of the opposite parties who denies the claim of this complainant to

 disprove the statements affirmed and swear in chief examination in the form of proof affidavit.  But the 1^st opposite party has not turned up for the cross examination of the complainant for disproving the allegation leveled against the opposite parties, when the complainant mounted in the box and also admitted the closure of business by the other opposite parties and this is a  clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the 1^st opposite party.  In this circumstances he 1^st opposite party who offered the benefits to the products is liable to redressing the grievance suffered by the complainant.

          Regarding the relief sought for, we are of the view that it is not reasonable to directing the replacement of the product since the same has been performed for a period of 3 ½ years after purchasing.  The only way to the redressal of the grievance of the complainant is to cure the defects of the products.  The 1^st opposite party also liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony sustained by him.  The points answered accordingly.

          Point No.3:-

          In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms. (1)1^st Opposite party is directed to rectify the defects sustained by the LED TV in the custody of the complainant within a period 30 days of receipt of this order.

(2) The opposite party 1 also directed to pay Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand) towards compensation.

(3) The Opposite party 1 also directed to pay Rs. 1000/-( One Thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant.  The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.10,500/-(Ten thousand and five hundred only) ½ of the  invoice amount of the product with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with compensation and costs ordered as terms No.2 &3 from the opposite party1 and its assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the  05^th  day of June , 2020.                   

                                      Sd/-Smt. P.R.Sholly (Member)

                                      Sd/-Sri. S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1                 -        Copy of Invoice dtd.27/10/2014.        

Ext.A2                 -        Annual Maintenance Contract Certificte.

Ext.A3                 -        Annual Maintenance Contract Broussure .

Ext.A4                 -        Office Copy of Advocate Notice (2nos)

Ext.A5                 -        Postal Receipt

Ext.A6                 -        Acknowledgement Card.

Ext.A7                 -        Reply Notice by OP1     

Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-