SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the value of TV for an amount of Rs.41,750/- along with compensation and cost to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief :
The complainant had purchased a LED TV 43 PUT 7791/VTK 19 worth Rs.41750/- from 2nd opposite party on 5/6/2017. The 2nd OP has assured 2 years extended warranty from 5/6/2017 itself. Thereafter the TV set became defective on 26/7/2018, the complainant approached 2nd OP for repair the TV. Then 2nd Op states that the complaint was registered and informed to 3rd OP. Then the complainant registered the complaint as No.COC2607180058. On 26/7/2018 the technician inspected the TV, voucher given, and the technician informed that the Led display is damaged and need to replace some spares . Then OP.NO.3 assured that Philips panel replaced in free of cost and the spares only reached through courier and one month time taken for repair the TV. But after one month the complainant again approached to 3rd OP for repair the TV. But Ops.No.2&3 informed that due to the heavy flood the internal spares and parts were not reached. Thereafter 6 months the complainant repeated the demands to opposite parties. But the Ops neither repair the set nor to replace another TV set within the warranty period. So there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. Ultimately the commission had to hold that the OPs have no version as such in this case came to be proceed against the opposite parties as exparte.
Eventhough the opposite parties have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the opposite parties. 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 marking them Ext.A1to A3 and complainant was examined as PW1. So the opposite parties remain absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the original cash bill paid by the complainant for the Led TV for an amount of Rs.41750/- to the 2nd OP. Ext.A2 is the warranty card and Ext.A3 is the service receipt. According to the complainant the TV was purchased on 5/6/2017 as per Ext.A1. So the Ops bound either to repair the TV or to replace or refund the price of the TV. Since the opposite parties denied to repair or replace the TV set. There is deficiency of service on their part. Under this circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ops are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the purchase price of TV set from the opposite parties. Therefore we hold that the Ops were jointly and severally liable to rectify or replace the TV or refund Rs.41750/- to the complainant along with Rs.6,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.41750/- to the complainant along with Rs.6,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019, after the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the LED. TV from the complainant.
Exts:
A1- cash bill
A2-warranty card
A3 –Service receipt
PW1-Shinil-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
