Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

24^thday of February 2023

CC 574/19 filed on 18/10/19

Complainant         :         Rajagopalan, S/o Velayudhan, Vennikal House,

                                      Edamuttom Village, Edamuttom Post,

                                      ValapadPanchayath, ChavakadTaluk,

                                      Thrissur – 680 568.

                                      (By Adv. Arjun Das P.H., Thrissur. Public Counsel)

Opposite Parties    :   1)  Pittapillil Agencies, Rep. by Manager,

                             Nr. Asoka Theater, Sringapuram, Kodungallur,

                             Thrissur  - 680 664.

                       2)  Videocon Industries Ltd., Rep. by Manager,

                             Fort House, 2^nd Floor, 221, Dr. D.N. Road,

                             Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 001.

                       3)  Videocon Kerala Store Office, Rep. by Manager,

                             Aswathy Agencies, Thriprayar, IV/62 P, Thriprayar,

                             Thrissur – 680 566.

                                      (Ex-parte)

F I N A L  O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1. Summary of the complaint, as averred :

          Statedly, being lured by the newspaper advertisements of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant, a senior citizen residing in the district of Thrissur, on 29/03/2016 purchased a “Videocon LED 40 inch” television, paying the 1^st opposite party a sum of Rs.33,999/- as its cost, vide their invoice No. 24-81-8298 dtd.29/03/16. The 2^nd and the 3^rd opposite parties are respectively the  HeadOffice and the Kerala Store Office, of the manufacturer company of the TV concerned. The TV in question bore thereonan Yellow sticker declaring “3 year warranty”. The complainant was also provided with a warranty card NO. 6038454 which provided 3 year warranty (original warranty for 1 year and extended warranty for 2 years).Things being so, on 15/01/19, the TV in question exhibited problem with its screening. Having been  repeatedly contacted by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party on 13/03/19 instructed the complainant to produce the TV before them for repair. The next day itself, the complainant produced the TV before the 1^st opposite party and was handed over to the 1^st opposite party for repair vide their receipt No. 6107 dtd.14/03/19. The 1^st opposite party promised that the TV in question would be repaired and returned within a week. But after one week, the Manager of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the TV was irreparable and it would therefore be exchanged with another TV on the complainant’s payment of further sum of Rs.3,000/-. The complainant alleges that the new TV shown to him in exchange of the defective TV in question, was an old 25 inch TV which was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant on the strength of the 3 year warranty offered by the opposite parties, claims to be eligible for replacement of the defective TV with a brand new LED TV. The defective TV in question,statedly still remains with the 1^st opposite party. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the TV in question, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.

2) NOTICE :

          Commission issued notice tothe opposite parties. All the opposite parties failed to file their written version before the Commission. Proceedings against all the opposite parties are seen set ex-parte.

          3) Evidence :

          The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Ext. A1to A4, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The proceedings against the opposite party being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.

          4) Deliberation of facts and evidence of the case :

          The Commission had very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is the Invoice dtd. 29/03/16, issued by the 1^stopposite party, in favour of the complainant towards the sale of “Videocon LED 40 inch” at a cost of Rs.33,999/-. Ext. A2 is the Videocon 3 year warranty offer card with Serial No. 6038454 in respect of the LED TV. Ext. A3 is the sticker that was pasted on the TV, declaring 3 year warranty. Ext. A4 is the Service slip No.6107 dtd.14/03/19 issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant towards receiving the TV from him.

          5) Points to be deliberated :

          (i)      Whether the act of the opposite party is tantamount to unfair trade

                   practice or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

                   the opposite parties ? Also whether the complainant is entitled to

                   refundof the invoice cost of the TV in question ?

          (ii)     Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any compensation

                   from the opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?

          (iii)    Costs ?

          6) Point No.(i)

          The Ext. A2 warranty card unambiguously expresses three year warranty (Original 1 year + extended 2 years ) for the Videocon LED TVs purchased between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/16. Ext. A1 Invoice evidences the complainant’s purchase of the TV on 29/03/16 which is within the period prescribed. Hence the complainant’s claim of warranty is explicitly genuine. Ext. A4 receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party reveals that the complainant reported the defect of panel line and handed over the TV in question to the 1^st opposite party on 14/03/19. The complainant is undoubtedly, eligible either to get the TV in question repaired to his satisfaction or to get it replaced with an equally worth TV, if the defective TV is irreparable. The opposite parties failed to do either.Evidently there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Offering tall and hollow promises by traders as well as manufacturers at the time of sale and subsequently budging from walking their promises, constitute an unfair trade practice. Hence, in the instant case, the opposite parties’ deceptive act of having not cared to fulfil their assurance of 3 year warranty to the TV in question, is an unfair trade practice. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we find no reason to disbelieve the contentions raised by the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version before the Commission in spite of  their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission expressed the same view by its order dtd. 09/10/17 in RP 579/2017 [2017(4) CPR 590]. Hence the complainant is entitled to receive a refund of the invoice cost of the TV that he paid i.e. Rs.33,999/-. Thus point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant.

          7) Point (ii) & (iii) :

          The complainant who expended a handsome sum of Rs.33,999/- for purchasing a new LED TV, could not enjoy its fruits owing to the misdeeds on the part of the opposite parties, which would certainly have inflicted agony and hardship on him. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the agony and hardship he underwent and a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards costs.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to

1. refund to the complainant the invoice price of the TV in question i.e. Rs.33,999/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only),
2. pay the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the agony and hardship he underwent, and 
3. pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) towards costs,

all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission, this the 24^thday of February 2023.

    Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                      Sd/-

Sreeja S.                                   Ram Mohan R                         C. T. Sabu

Member                                             Member                                    President

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. A1 Invoice dtd. 29/03/16, issued by the 1^st opposite party, in favour of the 

             complainant towards the sale of “Videocon LED 40 inch” at a cost of 

             Rs.33,999/-.

Ext. A2 Videocon 3 year warranty offer card with Serial No. 6038454 in respect

             of the LED TV.

Ext. A3 sticker that was pasted on the TV, declaring 3 year warranty.

Ext. A4 Service slip No.6107 dtd.14/03/19 issued by the 1^st opposite party in

              favour of the complainant towards receiving the TV from him.

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Nil

                                                                                                    Id/-                                                                                                                     Member