SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as the value of the T.V and Rs.16,900/-towards the price of new T.V and also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
Complaint in brief :-
On 14/2/2020, complainant purchased Nestron Sigma X32 inch T.V worth Rs.10,000/- from OP’s shop. At the time of purchase, T.V was provided with 3 years warranty and assured free maintenance towards any defects arise during the warranty period. On 23/12/2022 the said T.V become complaint and on 24/12/2022 a complaint was registered with a complaint ID No.231222037 and on 27/12/2022 a technician came to inspect the TV and found that the panel was complaint and will rectify the issue with new panel board. But even after several attempts to contact OPs they never rectified the issue by stating that the panel was not available and complainant constrained to purchase a new TV worth Rs.16,900/- since complainant and his wife were depending TV for their sole entertainment during retired life. Hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to both OPs . The OPs received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. Hence the commission held that the OPs have no version as such in this case came to be proceed against the OPs are set exparte.
Even though, the opposite parties have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OPs. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The complainant was examined as PW1, so the OPs are remain absent in this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.
On the perusal of documents produced by complainant as the OPs remained exparte, the Ext.A2, the purchase bill issued by 1st OP indicate the price of TV as Rs.10,000/- and on perusing Ext.A1, the warranty card it is seen that 36 months of warranty provided for units and components etc. Even though complainant made an averment with regard to the registration of complaint with an ID 231222037, and there is no documentary proof with regard to the issue raised against panel board, produced by complainant. But the complainant had produced Ext.A3 which shows the purchase of another TV worth Rs.16900/- on 6/1/2023 ie within 13 days after the issue arose with the alleged TV and as per Exts.A1&A2, the TV purchased on 14/2/2020 and defect arose within the warranty period where the OPs left the issue unresolved ends in deficiency in service towards complainant. The OPs have given fair chance to defend their case and they remained exparte. The OPs are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as the value of TV along with compensation of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as the value of TV and also pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.10,000/- carry with 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After payment of above said amount, the opposite parties 1&2 are at liberty to take back the TV from the Complainant.
Exts:
A1- warranty card
A2&A3- Tax invoice
PW1-Baburaj C.V-Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
