Issues With TV, Failure To Resolve, Ernakulam District Commission Directs TCL And Seller To Refund/Replace, Pay Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held TCL and M/s MyG Paravur (Seller) liable for unfair trade practice for failure to resolve the issues with the 32-inch television within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to either replace the television or refund the purchase amount. They were also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs. Brief Facts: Mr. Jayan P. Ramachandran (“Complainant”) purchased a 32-inch television manufactured by TCL from M/s MyG Paravur (“Seller”). It came with a 36-month warranty. However, within 8 months of purchase, the Complainant found issues with the television and contacted both the Seller and the customer care service of TCL. A technician inspected the television and suggested replacing its display board within 2 weeks. However, the Complainant remained unattended during the 2 weeks, after which he was informed that the display board was unavailable. He was promised that he would receive a new product instead. Despite several attempts by the Complainant to contact TCL and the Seller, he received no response. Subsequently, the Complainant sent a legal notice to both parties but received no reply. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (“District Commission”). TCL and the Seller failed to appear before the District Commission. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission observed that despite several attempts by the Complainant, neither TCL nor the Seller provided any resolution. Furthermore, the Complainant's claims remained unchallenged as TCL and the Seller failed to appear for the proceedings. After reviewing the evidence presented by the Complainant, the District Commission relied on the case of Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar vs Pandit Automotive Ltd. and Anr. (Revision Petition No. 3519), wherein the NCDRC allowed a complaint based on 'res ipsa loquitur,' meaning 'the facts speak for themselves,' and the need to refer to a third-party opinion was not felt. The District Commission determined that the Complainant faced issues with the television soon after the purchase, and these issues persisted even after rectification and inspection. This suggested the presence of a manufacturing defect, rendering the television unworthy of use. This amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of TCL and the Seller. As a result, the District Commission directed TCL and the Seller to either replace the television or reimburse Rs. 10,490 to the Complainant. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs. Case Title: Jayan P. Ramachandran vs M/s TCL and Anr. Case No.: C.C. No. 97/2022 Advocate for the Complainant: Rakhee S. and Namitha Naveen Advocate for the Respondent: Sruthi Das Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Issues With TV, Failure To Resolve, Ernakulam District Commission Directs TCL And Seller To Refund/Replace, Pay Compensation

Smita Singh

Tags