Anila's Television: Choosing the Right Forum and Relief
Anila, a school teacher in Kochi, bought a 55-inch smart television for ₹62,000 from a local dealer in January. In May the screen went blank. The authorised service centre inspected it and reported physical damage to the panel, which is excluded from the one-year warranty; Anila says the television was never dropped and no one else used it. The dealer refuses replacement and offers a paid repair estimated at ₹18,000. She has the invoice, warranty card and a photograph of the crack taken before the service visit. She also remembers an influencer video, paid for by the brand, that said the model would easily last five years; the paid nature of the promotion was not disclosed. She spent ₹2,500 on travel and calls, and lost two working days. She wants a replacement, her money back and compensation, and asks whether she must go to the dealer's headquarters in Chennai or can file in Kochi.
1. Identify the consumer rights involved and the parties against whom Anila can proceed.
Read the worked answer
Rights engaged
- Right to safety: a television panel that fails within four months is not fit for its purpose.
- Right to be informed: the warranty exclusion for physical damage should have been explained at sale, and the influencer claim about lasting five years was misleading.
- Right to redressal: the dealer's flat refusal to replace or refund, without an independent inspection, denies her a remedy.
- Right to be heard: her version - supported by a timestamped photograph - was never considered before the service centre blamed physical damage.
Parties
- Dealer/seller - for deficiency in service and refusal to honour warranty obligations.
- Manufacturer or importer - product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for a manufacturing defect; the Act allows action without proof of negligence in specified cases.
- Service centre - if its inspection was casual or motivated; ask for a written, reasoned report.
- Brand and influencer - for misleading advertisement. The brand paid for the video and the influencer failed to disclose the material connection; a complaint can go to the Central Consumer Protection Authority as well as to the commission.
Note: she does not have to prove the crack was a manufacturing defect from scratch; she should request an independent inspection and rely on the photograph and the short time since purchase.
2. Which consumer commission has jurisdiction, where can she file, and what is the limitation period?
Read the worked answer
Pecuniary jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is based on the consideration paid - ₹62,000 - not on the compensation claimed. Under the pecuniary limits notified under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (as amended in 2021), the District Commission hears complaints up to ₹50 lakh. Anila's complaint therefore belongs to the District Commission in Kochi.
Territorial jurisdiction
She has a choice: file where she resides or works, or where the opposite party resides or carries on business. She can file in Kochi; she is not required to go to Chennai. Filing online through the e-Daakhil portal is available.
Limitation
The complaint must be filed within two years from the cause of action, i.e. from the failure of the television in May. She is comfortably within time, but she should file before the two-year window closes and should not let the dealer's repair offer delay her.
Practical point: name the dealer, the manufacturer and, if advised, the service centre as opposite parties, and attach the invoice, warranty card, photograph, written service report, and the record of calls and emails. A copy to the National Consumer Helpline often produces a settlement before the hearing.
3. Draft the reliefs Anila should claim and advise her on evidence and on the influencer issue.
Read the worked answer
Reliefs to claim
- Replacement with a new, defect-free television of the same model, or in the alternative refund of ₹62,000 with interest.
- Compensation for the ₹2,500 spent on travel and calls and for the loss of two working days' income, quantified and supported.
- Compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, kept reasonable and explained rather than a round figure.
- Costs of the proceedings.
She should not claim both replacement and the ₹18,000 repair cost, because they are alternatives; state them as alternatives in the prayer.
Evidence
- Invoice and warranty card showing date of purchase and the one-year term.
- The timestamped photograph of the crack and any unboxing or installation video.
- The service centre's report in writing, with the name and designation of the inspector.
- WhatsApp and email trail with the dealer, and the complaint reference number.
- Serial number and, if possible, an independent technician's opinion.
Influencer issue
The claim that the model would easily last five years, paid for and undisclosed, is a misleading advertisement. She can file a separate complaint with the Central Consumer Protection Authority, attaching the video link, the brand's payment indication and the absence of any disclosure label. The authority can order the advertisement to be withdrawn, impose a penalty and prohibit the endorser. This complaint supports her main case but does not replace it: her claim against the seller and manufacturer stands on the defect itself.