DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF JULY, 2024.

PRESENT  : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT

         : SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.

         : SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                   DATE OF FILING: 19.01.2023.                                              

CC/23/2023

                Chandran K., S/o. Kunjan, 9/667,                                                     - Complainant

Amnalakkad House, Ambalakkad,

Palakkad, Pin-68 004.

(By Adv.Adithayan.U)                                                 

                                                                                Vs

 1.           Consumer Care Executive,                                                                   -Opposite Party

Havells India Ltd, ORG Towers,

2D, Sector-126, Expressway,

Noida-201 304, Uttar Pradesh.

(By Adv.Santhosh T)

2.            Bismi Connect Pvt. Ltd,

                Rep. by Managing Director,

                80/10 Ward 21,

                Palakkad-Coimbatore Road,

                Near Stadium Bus Stand,

                Kalmandapam, Palakkad-678 001.

(By Adv.T.J.Lakshmanan)

ORDER

BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.

1.      Complainant purchased a Lloyd LED L43U2AOKA 43 inch TV manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the showroom of the 2^nd opposite party.  On 06.07.2019, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.44,900/- for the purchase of the TV.  The 2^nd opposite party made him believe that they are the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party and for any issues or services regarding the TV, he can approach them.

                      In the first week of March 2022, a couple of horizontal lines appeared on the LED TV screen and it kept moving along the screen.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for repair, but they completely neglected the complainant’s request and insisted on filing a complaint before the Consumer care executive of the 1^st opposite party.  On 19.03.2022, he lodged a complaint with them and a service personnel from the 1^st opposite party company visited and took the TV to their workshop for detailed inspection and repairs.  After inspection, on May 2022, the defective TV was replaced with another TV of a different model and specification.  On the very next day, he found out that the replaced TV was pre-owned and a second hand product as he spotted an E-mail account of the last user in the replaced TV.

                      Aggrieved by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant once again filed a complaint through the customer care of the 1^st opposite party for which no actions have been taken till date in order to replace the pre-owned TV or to compensate for his loss.

                      As per the warranty terms, if any defect occurs during the warranty period, he is entitled to get a replacement of an equivalent model TV. Hence, he approached the Commission for getting an order directing the opposite parties (1) To refund Rs.44,900/- being the purchase price of the TV to the complainant.  (2) To pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant together with 12% interest and cost of the litigation.

2.       After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.  

3.       The 1^st opposite party in their version contended that when the complainant registered a service request on 19.03.2022 stating panel issue, he was informed that as the same model is not available for replacement, a refurbished model can be given to resolve the issue to which he agreed.  He accepted the refurbished model and thereafter the LED TV was replaced with it.

                      Moreover, they conveyed to the complainant that they will try to arrange an equivalent model if they are able to arrange, then the product will be changed free of cost.  If they are unable to arrange equivalent model, then they are willing to offer a technologically upgraded model after charging the price difference.

                      The TV was purchased on 06.07.2019 and the first complaint was registered on 19.03.2022 ie after about two years of usage.  Hence, any manufacturing defect in the TV is ruled out.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and no cause of action as the refurbished set was provided to him after he agreed it and that product was checked by the technician and was found to be working fine as per standards.  Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The 2^nd opposite party in their version contended that the complainant is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation as it is filed three years after purchase.  The complainant purchased the product according to his own wish after thoroughly inspecting it.  The after sale service and warranty are provided by the manufacturer M/s.Havells India Ltd., the first opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer of the product.  The complainant never approached this opposite party after the purchase of the product.  This opposite party is completely unaware about the communications and transactions between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and they came to know about the grievances of the complainant only when they received Lawyer notice.

                      The complainant’s allegation is regarding the defects in the replaced TV provided by the 1^st opposite party for which the 2^nd opposite party is not at all liable.  Since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party for replacement of TV, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs from them and the complainant is not having any cause of action against the 2^nd opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party and the complainant has to be dismissed against them with their cost.

5.       From the pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration.

          1. Whether the opposite parties failed to give after sale service to the product as per warranty terms?

          2. Whether the TV purchased suffer from any manufacturing defect?

          3. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

          4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

          5. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

6.       Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A7 marked from his side.  The opposite parties did not file proof affidavit and their evidence was closed.  Heard.     

7.       Since there is admission from the part of the 1^st opposite party regarding the defect in the TV and replacement by refurbished model, points 1 and 2 are not discussed.

8.       Points 3 to 5

          Complainant’s case is that the LED TV which he purchased from the 2^nd opposite party and manufactured by Havells India Ltd (1^st OP) became defective within the warranty period itself.  He contacted the customer care of the 1^st opposite party and their technician visited his house and on inspection found it to be defective. The 1^st opposite party then replaced the TV with pre-owned LED TV with an old panel instead of providing a new or equivalent model.

9.       The 1^st opposite party in their version had admitted that the complainant registered a service request on 19.03.2022 raising panel issue.  They informed him that as the same model was not available for replacement, a refurbished model can be given to resolve the issue which he agreed.  They stated that the complainant agreed and accepted the refurbished model and it was duly replaced and installed by their technician.

10.     The complainant produced seven documents in order to prove his case which were marked as Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the warranty card.  As per the Terms and Conditions of “warranty, TV and components contained herein are warranted against defective material and workmanship for a period of 36 months from the date of purchase.”  Further, “Replacement of product” says “company may provide equivalent model in cases of replacement under warranty if same model is not available.”

                      Hence, from Ext.A2, it is clear that the complainant’s TV is under warranty and since it became defective, he is entitled to get is replaced with same/equivalent model TV.  Here, the 1^st opposite arty has replaced it with a refurbished one.  Eventhough they claims that the complainant had agreed to this, no evidence is adduced in support of their claim. They did not file proof affidavit or adduce any evidence. Further, the complainant was not cross examined in order to prove their contentions.  As per the warranty condition, the 1^st opposite party is bound to replace the defective product with a new one of the same/equivalent model.  Since they failed to comply it, there is deficiency in service on their part.

                      So, they are bound to compensate the complainant for that.  The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the acts of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party being the dealer and since they are not involved the transaction of replaced TV, they are exonerated from liability.

                      In the result, the complaint is allowed.

                      1) The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.44,900/- being the value of the TV together with 10% interest from 19.01.2023 till realisation.

                      2) The 1^st opposite party also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.

                      3) Let the 2^nd opposite party pay the amount to the complainant at first and let the 1^st opposite party reimburse the amount in the daily course of business.

The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof, from the date of the order, till the date of payment.

Pronounced in open court on this the 19^th day of July, 2024.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                      VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                  VIDYA A., MEMBER.

                                                           APPENDIX

          Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

            Ext.A1: The final bill bearing invoice No.1068379.

            Ext.A2: The warrant card.

            Ext.A3: The true copy of registered lawyer notice.

            Ext.A4: The track consignment.

            Ext.A5: The original postal receipt of the 2^nd opposite party.

            Ext.A6: The track consignment.

            Ext.A7: The original postal receipt of the 1^st opposite party.

            Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil

            Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.

            Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court witness: Nil

            Cost : 10,000/-.

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.