IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

 Wednesday the 31^st  day of August, 2016

Filed on 23-03-2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

C.C.No. 96/2016

between

Complainant:-                                                                   Opposite Parties:-

Sri. Geetha Krishnan T.S                          1.         Lloyd Electronics & Engineering Ltd.  

Theruvil Parambil                                                  Plot No.2. Industrial Area,                            

Muttum P.O                                                          Kalkaji, New Delhi-110 019, Inida

Harippad, Alappuzha                                            Ph: 0011-47100666

Pin- 690 511                                                             0011-   45804100

                                                                  2.         Parayil Agencies

                                                                              Park Junciton   

                                                                              Mavelikkara

                                                                              Ph:04792302624

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

          The complainant purchased an Air conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 15/5/2014.  The said AC became defective on 12/2/2016 and registered the compliant before the 1^st opposite party.  A Technician from the 1^st opposite party inspected the machine and inform the complainant that an amount or Rs 9,900/- is needed for repairing the AC.  The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this compliant seeking direction against the opposite party to rectify the defect under warranty benefits.

          2. Notice was served to the 2^nd opposite party but they did not appear before the Forum and hence opposite party No2 was set ex-party. 1^st opposite party appeared through the counsel but not filed any version and also absent for the subsequent proceedings hence 1^st opposite party was also set ex-party.

          3. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contentions of the 1^st opposite party the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration.

          1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for?

          4.  Issues 1 and 2

          The case of the complainant is that he had purchased an AC manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 15/5/2014 and the product became defective on 12/2/2016 and the complainant registered the complaint before the 1^st opposite party and they repaired the product on 1/4/2016 but again it became functionless and has not rectified the defect so far. Hence this compliant.

          5 . The complainant filed proof affidavit and document Ext A1 and A2 were marked. The Ext A1 is the retail invoice and Ext2 is the copy of LLOYD customer relationship management.  From the documents it can be seen that the complainant purchased the AC on 15/5/2014 and it became defective on 12/2/2016 and the complainant registered compliant before the 1^st opposite party with complaint ID.No LEEL120216073354 on 12/02/2016.  The warranty status shown in Exts A2 clearly shows that the product is under warranty.  The complainant purchased the product manufactured by the opposite party 1 honestly believing the assurance of opposite party 1 regarding the warranty.  Due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.  Complainant submitted that opposite party has repaired the product on 1/4/2016 but again became functionless and again a complaint was registered before 1^st opposite party on 1/7/2016 with complainant ID No.LEEL010716633548.  But the defect was not rectified so far.  The documents Exts A1 and A2 produced by the complainant proved the case of the complainant.  Even though the 1^st opposite party appeared before the Forum they did not file any version nor adduced any contra evidence and also absent from the subsequent proceedings. In this circumstance the Forum is of the opinion that the allegation put forwarded by the complaint against to the opposite parties highly genuine, since the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect properly even after getting an intimation amounts to deficiency in service. Even though the defect was brought to the notice to the 1st opposite party they have not made any earnest effort to rectify the same Ext A2 clearly shows that the product is under warranty.  So the complainant entitled to get it repaired under warranty.  So the compliant is to be allowed.

          6. In the result the opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to repair of product free of cost with a warranty of 6 months.  The opposite parties are further   directed to pay off amount of Rs. 1000/- towards cost of proceedings.  The order shall be complied with in one month of the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dictated to the confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of August 2016.

                                                                           Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

                                                              Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

                                                    Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

 Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

 Ext. A1           -          Copy of the Retail invoice

Ext A2                        -           Copy of LLOYD Customer relationship management          

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

-//True copy//-

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

Typed by : Br/-

Compd by: