DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 11^th day of October 2019 

Present: Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

             : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                                 Date of Filing: 12/11/2018

CC/146/2018

Premakumar.M.P,

Pothengil Kovilakam(H),

Nellaya Post, Palakkad – 679 335.

OR

Premakumar.M.P,

Sub Engineer, KSEB,

TMR Division, Kulappully,                                                                   : Complainant

Shoranur, Palakkad - 679 122.

(By party in person)

  Vs

1.  The Manger,                                       

Onida, MIRC Electronics Ltd.,

Onida House, Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093.

Maharashtra State.

2.  The Manager,

All India Service Head,

Adonis Electronics (P) Ltd.,

11-B, Mahal Industrial Estate,  

Mahakali Caves Road,

 Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093.

 Maharashtra State.

3.  The Branch Manager,

Onida, MIRC Electronics Ltd.,

5^th Floor, Vallamattam Estate,                                                                 : Opposite Parties

Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 015. Ernakulam.

4.  The Manager,

 Onida Customer Service,

 Puduppalli Street, Near KSRTC, Palakkad – 678 004.

(By Adv.Rajesh.M.Menon for opposite parties)

                                                                  O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

Brief facts of complaint

            Complainant had purchased an Onida 43” 4k Smart TV vide order No: OD113369977926373000 on 15.09.2018 through Flip cart with one year company warrantee and extra 2 years flip cart warrantee. After installation, the external hard disk was not working with the above Onida 4k smart TV.  Opposite parties had not provided Smart remote/Air mouse along with this Onida 4k smart TV to the complainant.  Due to this he could not select the options of the Live TV. Therefore the complainant sent a detailed complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 24.09.2018 mentioning all the above problems.  After that the Area Manager of Onida TV, Mr.Pradeep, visited his home on 29.09.2018 and convinced about the problems.  Two weeks later a technician from 4^th opposite party visited his home and checked the functioning of TV with an Air mouse/Smart remote. All functions of the live TV were working smoothly with these instruments.  But through external hard disk the TV was not working.  This matter has been informed to the area manager of Onida by the technician.  While going back he took Air mouse/Smart remote which was brought by him for inspection and told that after taking permission from the higher authorities these things will be handed over to the complainant.  But on the same day evening the Area Manager informed the complainant that first opposite party has not given permission to handing over air mouse or smart remote to him. Complainant submitted that so far the opposite parties had not taken any remedial action to solve the problems of the complainant.  Due to the act of opposite parties he had suffered a lot of mental agony. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.57,798/- towards cost of TV and compensation for mental agony.   

Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending the following:-

           The above complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact.  There is non-jointer and mis-jointer of parties in the above complaint and the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction.  The complaint did not purchase the TV from any of the authorized dealer of the opposite parties situated in Kerala State.  As per the allegation in the complaint itself the TV is purchased from the online company Flip cart.  The alleged purchase from flip cart is denied by this opposite parties.  If the allegation is right the complainant ought to have made flip cart as a party to this present complaint and the dealer who was supplied the goods to flip cart ought to have been made another party in the present complaint.  The allegation in the complaint that the hard drive was not been supported in the TV is denied by this opposite parties.  It is a false allegation.  The further allegation that the remote is not smart remote/Air remote is not correct as the remote control version available with the TV is more technically improved voice command control remote.  The option of Air remote not come with the TV and it can be provided to the consumer as an extra accessory which is chargeable in tune of Rs.1,500/- and the same is informed to the present complainant and he is not ready to purchase the same.  As per the records of the inspection of the alleged TV no technical or software problem is seen by the opposite parties. The complainant is trying to get additional benefits with false and frivolous complaint.  The alleged TV is supporting the hard discs which is been tested by the opposite parties service engineers.  So there is no merit in the complaint and the same may be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost of the opposite parties.

            Opposite parties filed additional version stating that any application of mobile will work on the TV provided to the complainant is android certified and all applications meeting the android certified specification and application available in the play store on the TV will be supported.  The opposite parties TV meet the international specifications of the USB.  The TV is tested with 1 TB and 2 TB external hard disk in our lab and found working satisfactorily.  Still the opposite party can analyze the customer external hard disk and if possible find solution.  For the same the opposite party need the hard disk at the R&D Centre, located in Mumbai.  Onida never promised air mouse with this TV as this TV is designed for android certified application and does not need air mouse.  If customer really needs air mouse he can either buy from market or buy from us.  If customer has loaded application which is not android certified for TV, we cannot guarantee performance of the application.  Maximum number of TV is without Air mouse. Also the remote which is given to customers is expensive and has additional feature “VOICE” where as the air mouse does not have the voice function.           

Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of complainant. No documents were produced from the part of opposite parties.         

The following issues are taken into consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief?

Issues 1 and 2

We have perused the affidavits and documents filed before the Forum. Opposite parties admitted in their version and affidavit that they had not provided air remote or smart remote along with TV. Contention of the opposite parties is that the option of Air remote not come with the TV and it can be provided to the consumer as an extra accessory which is chargeable in tune of Rs.1,500/- and the same was informed to the present complainant and he was not ready to purchase the same.  No documentary or oral evidences were adduced by the opposite parties to prove that option of Air remote not come with the TV and it can be provided to the consumer as an extra accessory which is chargeable in tune of Rs.1,500/- which was informed to the complainant.  According to opposite parties as per the records of the inspection of the alleged TV no technical or software problem was seen by the opposite parties. In order to prove this contention opposite parties had not produced inspection report of technical persons before the Forum. More over complainant submitted that all functions of the live TV was working smoothly with the Air mouse/Smart remote brought by the technician of 4^th opposite party.  In the above circumstances opposite parties cannot merely wash off their hands by saying that Onida never promised air mouse with this TV as this TV is designed for android certified application and does not need air mouse and if customer really needs air mouse he can either buy from market or buy from us. Opposite parties have the responsibility to provide remote along with the TV for the smooth functioning of the live TV.  Admittedly they did not do so. In the above circumstances we are of the view that by not providing air mouse and smart remote along with TV opposite parties committed deficiency in service.  Opposite parties unnecessarily dragged the complainant to the Forum. Definitely it will cause mental agony to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties have the liability to pay compensation to the complainant.

In the result complaint is allowed.  We direct opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for metal agony and cost of proceedings.

 The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite parties from the date of this order till realization.     

Pronounced in the open court on this the 11^th day of October 2019. 

                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                                             Shiny.P.R

                      President

                              Sd/-        

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                   Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant.

Ext.A1 – Copy of Tax invoice of TV bill dated 15.09.18

Ext.A2 – Copy of Tax invoice of extended warranty 2 years.

Ext.A3 – Copy of online complaint and reply letter dated September 24, 2018.

Ext.A4 – Copy of Gmail sent to opposite party by complainant

Ext.A5 – Copy of complaint and reply letter dated October 13, 2018.

Ext.A6 – Copy of Tax invoice of TV bill dated 15.09.18

Ext.A7 – Copy of Tax invoice of extended warranty 2 years.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

NIL                                                                        

Witness examined on the side of complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

NIL

Cost:   NIL