DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023.
Filed on: 10/02/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 71/2021
Between
COMPLAINANT
John K Varghese, Kalappurayil House, Kakkadu P.O, Piravom-686664.
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha 686661)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. M/s Nestron Technologies,1st Floor, K K Tower, Kozhikode Bypass, Pantheeramkavu, Kozhikode-673019,Rep. by its Managing Director
2. M/s my G, Door No. X11/667, Janatha buildings, Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha-686661, Rep. by its Managing Director.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, the complainant had purchased a Nestron Zigma X43 inch smart LED TV(ntzx435- 1219j3-0231) from the 2nd opposite party for Rs. 19999/- on 14.02.2020. Three years warranty was provided for the TV. While so, the complainant noticed display complaint. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties on 09.01.2021. A technician of the 1st opposite party attended the complaint and informed that the panel board of the TV suffered breakage. He suggested replacement of the panel board and demanded Rs. 15000/- for the same in spite of the fact that the defect occurred during the warranty period. After some days the entire display lost and only audio is available now. Thereafter the complainant contacted the customer care wing of the 1st opposite party. But nothing was done by them to replace the defective TV. Thereby the complainant has been deprived of the TV facility. The breakage of the panel board is due to the manufacturing defect of it. There was no external impact or any history of physical damage of the TV. The reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify a major defect of the TV supplied to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has been put to severe hardships and mental agony due to the reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the TV. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to the refund of the price of the LED TV Rs. 19999/- together with interest from the date of purchase till realization, to pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the reluctance to rectify the defect of the TV supplied to him and cost of the proceedings.
2. Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions with in the statutory period. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had produced proof affidavit and 2 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-2.
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the retail invoice dated 14.02.2020.
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the warranty card.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a copy of the invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party. (Exhibit A-1). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the product to the opposite parties. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify a major defect of the TV supplied to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has been put to severe hardships and mental agony due to the reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the TV. A Copy of the warranty card was also produced by the complainant before the commission (Exbt.A-2).
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complaint is regarding the defects of the smart LED TV supplied by the opposite parties. As per Exhibit A2, Three years warranty was provided for the TV. But instead of rectifying the defect the opposite parties demanded Rs.15,000/- for replacing the panel board in spite of the fact that the defect occurred within an year from the date of purchase. The opposite parties were set exparte.
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.
We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties did not file their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 2 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-2. But the opposite parties did not make any attempt to participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall refund Rs.19,999/- (Rupees nineteen thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) towards the price of the LED TV as per Exhibit A-1 invoice to the complainant.
ii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the reluctance to rectify the defect of the TV supplied to him.
iii. The opposite parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of March, 2023
D.B.Binu, President
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the retail invoice dated 14.02.2020.
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the warranty card.
