Amritsar District Commission Holds Videocon Liable For Deficiency In Service For Selling Defective LED TV And Failure To Resolve Issues
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab) bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member) held Videocon liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace the LED TV which malfunctioned within the warranty period. The bench directed Videocon to replace the LED TV or pay the sale price of Rs. 49,800/- to the Complainant and...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab) bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member) held Videocon liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace the LED TV which malfunctioned within the warranty period. The bench directed Videocon to replace the LED TV or pay the sale price of Rs. 49,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Mr. Rajnish Kumar (“Complainant”) purchased a Videocon LED 43-inch TV on October 29, 2016, for Rs. 49,800/-. Subsequently, in 2018, the TV experienced a malfunction, prompting the Complainant to inform the issues to the Videocon's customer support. Wadhwa Enterprises (“Service Center”) acknowledged the issue and purportedly replaced the motherboard and other parts, albeit with old and used components. However, the TV ultimately failed to function despite these interventions, causing the Complainant to repeatedly reach out to Videocon and its service centre for resolution. Despite numerous attempts and reminders, Videocon failed to address the issue satisfactorily. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar, Punjab (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Videocon and its service centre.
Upon receiving notice, the service centre argued that the warranties were to be facilitated by Videocon through its authorized service centres, thereby, absolving the service centre of liability for damages caused by the product. The service centre contended that the complaints were duly addressed by Videocon through repair services and claimed that the Complainant failed to file the complaint within the prescribed time frame as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On the other hand, Videocon didn't appear before the District Commission.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant purchased an LED 43-inch with a warranty period of five years. It noted that the replacement of the motherboard and other parts with old and used components resulted in further damage to the TV. It held that the Complainant provided substantial evidence, including affidavits, invoices, emails, and chat recordings, supporting their claims of defective products and inadequate customer support from Videocon.
The District Commission held that Videocon failed to appear, thereby leaving the averments and evidence presented by the Complainant unchallenged and, thus, implicitly admitted them. Therefore, the District Commission held Videocon liable for deficiency in services.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Videocon to either replace the Complainant's LED TV with a new one of the same make and model or reimburse the Complainant the sale price of Rs. 49,800/-. Additionally, Videocon was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant. The complaint against the service centre was dismissed by the District Commission.