D.O.F : 03/12/2020
D.O.O : 30/09/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.162/2020
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sooraj V S
Vettimattathil House
Vellikkoth P O
Ajanoor, Kanhangad.
(Adv: Babuchandran K) : Complainant
And
- The Proprietor
National Radio Electronics
North Kottacheri
Kanhangad.
(Adv: Udaya Kumar R)
- Micromax Informatics Ltd
C/o Bhagawathi Products Ltd
Plot No. 18, Sector 2 II E
Panatnagar, Rudrapur
U S Nagar, Uttarakhand – 263153. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Micromax LED 50 CF 1355 UHD TV from the shop of opposite party on 08/07/2020 for Rs. 31,500/-. The purpose of purchase is to attend online classes for his son during covid period. After 100 days of purchase, the display of the TV stopped. On 15/10/2020, the complainant registered the complaint as per No. AER 1710200020. After few days, a technician came and examined the TV and informed that it has display complaint. Even after informing the complainant many times, the opposite party No.1 neither cured the defects, nor replaced the TV. Finally on 26/11/2020, the complainant had gone to the shop of opposite party and informed his inconvenience due to the non-functioning of TV. The opposite party then offered to replace the TV. But so far, no steps were taken either to cure the defects or replace it. Due to the lethargic attitude of opposite party No.1 the complainant was constrained to arrange loan from HDFC for purchase a new TV for his son to attend online classes. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and seeking refund of the price of the TV with 15% interest with Rs. 1,00,000/- for damages and mental agony. The complainant is seeking Rs. 2,00,000/- including cost of litigation.
The opposite party filed version. According to him, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party admitted the purchase of TV from opposite party for an amount of Rs. 31,500/-. The opposite party is the only agent between complainant and manufacturer. According to opposite party, he is not a necessary party in this case and the complainant has to implead the manufacturer and supplier of Micromax products in this case. The company and supplier are necessary party in this case. The opposite party denies all averments in the complaint which are against them and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The complainant impleaded manufacturer as supplemental opposite party. Subsequently the complaint amended. Notice of opposite party No.2 returned stating left. Name of opposite party No.2 called absent, set exparte. Subsequently the complainant amended.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the document produced is marked as Ext. A1. No cross recorded. The main issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in not curing the defects of TV?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience all questions can be answered together. Here the complainant purchased a Micromax LED TV of Rs. 31,500/- from opposite party No.1 on 08/07/2020 to provide online class facility to his son. Within 3 months, ie, on 15/10/2020, the display of the TV became defective. So the complainant registered a complaint. After few days, a technician of opposite party No.2 came and examined the TV, he informed that the TV had display complaint. Thereafter the complainant made many requests to cure the defects, but the opposite parties are not ready to heed the request of the complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to purchase another TV for his son to attend online classes with the financial assistance of HDFC. The complainant produced Ext. A1 invoice to prove the purchase of the TV. Due to the irresponsible attitude of opposite parties in not curing the defects of the TV, the complainant had undergone huge loss and severe mental agony, hardships. The loss of the complainant has to be compensated. The opposite parties are jointly and severally bound to compensate the loss of the complainant in the absence of contra evidence.
The relief sought by the complainant is refund of the price of the TV Rs. 31,500/- with 15% interest along with Rs. 25,000/- compensation and Rs. 2,00,000/- including litigation cost.
The litigation cost sought by the complainant is highly excessive and without any basis. The complainant is entitled for refund of the price of the TV with compensation and cost. Considering the circumstances of this case, the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation in this case.
Therefore the complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite parties to refund Rs. 31,500/- (Rupees Thirty One thousand Five hundred only) with 9% interest from 02/12/2020 till disbursal with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1 – Invoice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
