DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB  : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

 Thursday the 29^th day of  December, 2022

C.C.85/2022

Complainant

Jacob Mathew,

Lilly Cottage,

Puthiyara P.O,

Thiruthiyad, Kozhikode – 673004.

Opposite Party

Big Bazar (future retail Ltd)

PVH City Park,

Mavoor Road,

Kozhikode – 673004. 

(Correct address)

SMART BAZAR,

Reliance Retail Limited,

PVH City Park,

Mavoor Road,

Kozhikode – 673004.

(Address corrected as per IA order 293/2022 dated 01/11/2022)

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

        2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

                     On 11/07/2019  the complainant purchased KORYO 80 Cm- 32HD Ready LED TV (MODEL No: KLE32DLCHN7) from the opposite party. The manufacturer’s warranty was one year and extended warranty was two years. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 888/- for the extended warranty. The total amount paid including the charges for extended warranty was Rs. 9,776/-.

      3. The TV became defective and ceased working during the warranty period. The complaint was reported to the opposite party over phone and through e-mail and all the details and documents were forwarded online. But no positive action was taken to solve the issue till date. The TV was purchased for the study purpose of his three children. He was put to great mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.

    4. In spite of receipt of notice issued from this Commission, the opposite party chose to remain absent and hence set ex-parte.

   5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

             (1). Whether there was any deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

         (2). Reliefs and costs.

    6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 were marked. 

    7. Heard.    

       8.   Point No.1 :  The complainant has approached  this Commission alleging   deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The specific allegation is that there was neglect on the part of the opposite party to repair the TV during the warranty period.

        9. PW1, who is none other than the complainant, has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the invoice for having purchased the TV. It shows that the complainant purchased the TV in question paying Rs. 9,776/- including charges of extended warranty amounting to Rs. 888/-. Ext A2 is the copy of the warranty card and Ext A3 is the copy of the extended warranty card. Exts A2 and A3 show that the manufacturer’s warranty is one year and extended warranty is 2 years. The evidence of PW1 shows that the TV became defective and ceased working during the warranty period and in spite of his requests, no positive action was taken in this regard by the opposite party. Ext A4  is the copy of the communication between the complainant and opposite party.

     10. The opposite party has not turned up to file version. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4. The act of the opposite party in not attending the complaint amounts to gross deficiency of service. The opposite party is liable to repair the TV and make it in a sound working condition. The complainant was not able to enjoy the TV purchased by him. He was put to mental agony and hardship due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite party, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.

          10. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

    a) CC 85/2022 is allowed in part.

   b) The opposite party is hereby directed to carry out the repair works of the TV under warranty and make it in a sound working condition.

  c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of  Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as compensation  to the complainant.

 d) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.

 Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29^th day of December, 2022.

Date of Filing: 01/04/2022.

                                   Sd/-

                           PRESIDENT

                                 Sd/-                                                                                        MEMBER                                        

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext. A1 –    Copy of the invoice.

Ext. A2 – Copy of the warranty card.

Ext. A3 – Copy of the extended warranty card.

Ext. A4 – Copy of the communication between the opposite party.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 – Jacob Mathew  (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties

Nil.

                                Sd/-

                     PRESIDENT

                          Sd/-                                                                                        MEMBER                            

                                                                                                                                    Forwarded/By Order

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                      Assistant Registrar