Dhananjay Jog
As discussed in a previous article, the Consumer Protection Act has become a lifeline for anyone who pays for a product or service and receives less than what was promised. Thanks to this Act and the commissions it has established, even complaints about low-value items can now be effectively addressed.
Prior to the Act, complaints had to be filed in a Civil Court, alongside many other pending cases. Only a qualified, registered advocate could represent a case, incurring legal fees. With courts across India handling millions of cases, some dragging on for years or even decades, most people wouldn’t bother filing complaints, even for expensive appliances. A defective washing machine or water heater would often be written off as bad luck and discarded.
Given this, it’s interesting to see someone complain about a broken television and win their case. Not only did he get a replacement, but he was also given compensation. Let’s see how this happened.
Ashwin Mashelkar purchased an LED television from Noronha Enterprises, an authorised dealer of Hero Televisions, a manufacturer (all names changed), for Rs. 63,000. At the time of purchase, he was offered an additional two-year warranty beyond the one year included in the price, giving him a total of three years of coverage. The service job card that Mashelkar attached to his complaint stated ‘Extended Warranty’. After two years, the television became non-functional—it developed defects and stopped working.
Mashelkar approached dealer Noronha, who, after repeated follow-ups, only provided him with a helpline number for the manufacturer. Mashelkar registered his complaint and was given a booking number. However, that was all he received, as no one came to address the defect. He continued following up and was assured that his case had been prioritised and referred to higher authorities. He was asked to allow more time for them to resolve the issue. Trusting their assurances, he waited in good faith.
Mashelkar then escalated the matter via email to Hero Televisions, explaining that his problem remained unresolved and that the responses he had been receiving were unsatisfactory. In reply, he was assured that his case would be resolved quickly and that a replacement television was being arranged from their warehouse. However, this turned out to be another false promise—nothing happened. A month later, Mashelkar sent another email asking for an explanation and reminding them of the promised replacement. Yet, all he received in response was silence.
Annoyed, Mashelkar sent legal notices to both Hero Televisions and Noronha Enterprises. Only Noronha responded, stating, “We are not responsible for repairs of the items; it is the duty of Hero Televisions to attend to and resolve the matter.” The manufacturer, Hero Televisions, did not respond in writing but instead called Mashelkar again with the same empty promises. It seemed that Hero Televisions had a practice of giving assurances over the phone but not taking real action.
Mashelkar finally filed a complaint with the District Commission. He pointed out that although his television had become defective during the warranty period, the delay on the manufacturer’s part meant that the warranty had now expired. The Commission issued notices to both Hero Televisions and Noronha Enterprises. A recipient of such a notice is required to reply within 45 days. In my years on the Bench, I have found that sometimes the recipient fails to respond, either due to oversight—such as a clerk accepting the notice, placing it in a drawer, and then going on leave—or because the recipient has no defense to offer for their actions or inaction.
Why Hero Televisions never responded can only be speculated. I surmise that it is because they had no explanation to offer. In any case, despite being given several opportunities, neither Hero Televisions nor Noronha Enterprises filed a reply, affidavit, or written arguments. Given the need for justice not to be delayed, we ordered that the matter proceed ex-parte, meaning that only the complainant, Mashelkar, would be heard. Naturally, no one from the opposing parties appeared to argue the case.
In our judgment, we noted that Mashelkar had taken prudent and reasonable steps on several occasions to convey the issue of his defective television. It was also clear that the manufacturer and dealer had failed to address the issue. Mashelkar had been given a complaint booking number, which he produced before us, showing that his complaint had been registered by the manufacturer. Yet, no one attended to it. While a company might sometimes offer a client a solution such as, “We are currently facing a manpower shortage, but please bring your defective appliance to our service center, and we will repair it and return it to you promptly,” Mashelkar did not even receive such an offer. Mashelkar produced the invoice showing the date and price of his television, and the service job card he attached to the complaint clearly stated ‘Extended Warranty’ under the ‘Service’ column. Mashelkar had also sent multiple emails to the manufacturer, and he produced copies of these emails. One email from Hero Televisions explicitly promised him a replacement.
The Commission had issued notices to both Hero Televisions and Noronha Enterprises, but neither of them had bothered to respond. One could reasonably conclude that they had similarly not taken the trouble to address Mashelkar’s defective television issue.
We concluded that Hero Televisions and Noronha Enterprises were both guilty of being deficient in service, which caused inconvenience and discomfort to Mashelkar and his family, who were unable to watch programmes on their television despite paying a substantial price for it.
Our judgment, therefore, ordered Hero Televisions to replace Mashelkar’s television with a brand-new LED television within 45 days. We also directed that both Hero Televisions and Noronha Enterprises be jointly and severally liable to pay Mashelkar compensation and costs of Rs. 25,000, also within the same 45-day period. Failure to comply within 45 days would result in an interest charge of 12% per annum starting from the 46th day.
(If you have any questions, comments, or if you are a consumer seeking assistance, please feel free to email me at danjog@yahoo.com)
