By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. On 04/11/2020 one Mohammed Shabeer, complainant’s friend purchased a new Realme 43 inch LED TV for giving to complainant at the occasion of housewarming of complainant. While purchasing the above TV opposite parties assured the quality and service of the TV and also assured warranty to the above TV. By believing the assurance of opposite parties , Mohammed Shabeer purchased the TV worth Rs.23,164/- and given to complainant .The bill amount also was paid by Mohammed Shabeer Opposite party No.1 issued the bill in the name of Mohammed Shabeer .
2. But within few days of its use the TV got dyfunct and complainant contacted opposite party No.1 and as per their direction complainant registered a complaint through online. On 13/05/2021 complainant received a message that within 72 hours the authorised service technician of opposite party No.2 will contact the complainant and inspect the TV. Thereafter the authorised service technician of opposite party No.2 came to complainant’s house and inspected the TV and stated that a device inside the TV had defects and it is to be changed. He also told to complainant that, complainant should pay a huge amount for repairing the same. Complainant then told to the service person that the warranty period is not over, hence the TV is to be repaired free of cost during the warranty period. The authorised service person directed the complainant to contact opposite party No.1.
3. Thereafter the complainant contacted opposite party No.1 and they told to complainant that if opposite party No.2 allowed them to change the device free of cost, then only they can change the device. Then complainant contacted the opposite parties so many times, but no response was received from the opposite parties till date. Complainant contended that the TV had manufacturing defect. Hence this complaint.
4. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a full refund of Rs.23,164/- the cost of the TV to him or replacement of the TV with a defect free new one of same specification or repair the TV and provide extra warranty period, Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties andnotice served on them and they appeared before the Commission and opposite party No.2 filed version. But opposite party No.1 did not file version, hence no version recorded. Hence opposite party No.1 set exparte.
6. In their version, opposite party No.2 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They stated that there is no expert opinion to show that the product in question had inherent defect or fault arose due to some manufacturing defects. They admitted that complainant contacted their service centre on 06/06/2021 and due to Covid 19 pandemic there was lock down in Kerala State and the service was delayed , hence the technician visited on 18/06/2021 at complainant’s house. They also stated that they offered refund of the amount and the same was under process, since the complainant did not answer the call of opposite party No.2 service team. So the case was closed on 25/08/2021 as complainant was not contactable. Thereafter complainant never contacted the opposite party No.2 team. After receiving the notice from consumer Commission they called the complainant. But complainant demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation along with the cost of the TV. It is an illegal demand, hence opposite party No.2 is not in a position to fulfil the same, because there is no deficiency of service from their side. They again stated that now also they are ready to refund the invoice amount to the complainant. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the Tax invoice given by opposite party No.1 to Mohammed shabeer on 04/11/2020 (Original). Ext.A2 is the copy of the message regarding the complaint registered and regarding the appointment and visit of technician. Thereafter opposite party No.2 did not file affidavit and documents to prove their case. Hence opposite party No.2 also set exparte.
8. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. The allegations against opposite party No.2 is proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced two documents which are very supportive to prove his case. From Ext. A2 it is clear that the TV had defects. In their version opposite party No.2 admitted that complainant contacted their service centre on 06/06/2021 and complained that he is facing issue in the TV since bright dots are coming on it. They also admitted that they arranged a technician visit, but due to covid pandemic, the service was delayed. They also admitted that they are ready to refund the amount that means the TV had defects and complainant registered a complaint, but nothing happened thereafter. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.2 as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.2 is deficient in service.
9. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party No.2 is directed to refund Rs.23,164/-(Rupees Twenty three thousand one hundred and sixty four only) the cost of the TV to the complainant and complainant is directed to return the defective TV to opposite parties after payment made by them and opposite parties are directed to take the defective TV from complainant’s house.
- The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.2 liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext.A1 : Tax invoice given by opposite party No.1 to Mohammed Shabeer on
04/11/2020 (Original).
Ext.A2 : Copy of the message regarding the complaint registered and regarding the
appointment and visit of technician.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
