Ernakulam District Commission Holds Toshiba India Pvt Ltd. Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Kerala, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Toshiba India and the carrier liable for deficiency in service over substandard product and concealment of relevant information during the purchase by the complainant. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased...
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Kerala, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Toshiba India and the carrier liable for deficiency in service over substandard product and concealment of relevant information during the purchase by the complainant.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant purchased an LED TV from the TTL Trading( seller) with assurances of good quality and a 3-year warranty; however, the TV became defective within a year. Despite contacting the manufacturer( Toshiba India) for a resolution, there was no response. When the complainant sought a replacement from the seller, they rejected the request, asserting that Toshiba Company does not manufacture or sell TVs. The seller sold the TV without disclosing warranty details, and existence of the manufacturers during the sale.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The seller contended that the complainant bought a Toshiba TV from them, who obtained it from LULU Hypermarket, asserting its authenticity and flawless condition. The seller, a retail dealer, argued that it lacks the authority to handle product complaints, and only the authorized service center can address Toshiba product issues. They denied hiding the manufacturer's closure and contended that the TV was purchased in good faith based on the manufacturer's warranty, and deny mistreating the complainant. The seller argued that in response to the defect complaint, they promptly contacted the manufacturer's service center and booked a complaint. The seller challenged the complainant to provide evidence of alleged deficiencies or defects.
Toshiba(manufacturer) challenged the complainant's case, citing unclear purchase details and a lack of a specific complaint number. The manufacture argued that it found no record of the complaint, upon the notice of the commission notice and the absence of a complaint suggests no deficiency in service. They disputed the attached warranty card's applicability, noting it belonged to a different Toshiba LED model, and disclaimed responsibility for any unauthorized warranty card issuance by a third party. The manufacturer stated that the complainant never filed a valid complaint within the stipulated one year warranty period.
Observations by the Commission
The commission, observed that the evidence, such as news articles, supports the claim that manufacturer ceased its TV business in January 2016, but the seller sold the TV without revealing this discontinuation, indicating unfair trade practices and a service deficiency. The Commission held the seller and the manufacturer liable stating that non-responsive and delayed handling of the complaint about defective TV within the warranty period constituted a service deficiency.
The Commission upon further observation held that that the seller, engaged in unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service by not disclosing important details about the warranty and the closure of the TV business by the manufacturer. The purchased TV developed defects within the warranty period, constituting a service deficiency, for which the primary responsibility rests with seller, as the sale took place after the shutdown of the manufacturer's business.
The Commission held the manufacturer and the seller jointly and severally liable and directed them to refund the value of the TV after deducting 10% towards depreciation for the usage of the same for one year, along with a payment of Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 4,000 towards the cost of proceedings.
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. G.G. Manoj & Adv. Adv. Rajeswary K.
Case Title: Sainul Abideen Vs. TTL Trading Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No.- 447/2017