IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the  12^th day of  November    2009

CC.No.138/2009

T.V.Suresh,

Talavil House,

P.O.Poduvacheri, 670 621.                                          Complainant

1. L.G.Electronics Inida Pvt.Ltd.

  Authorised service centre,

  Team Care,

  Sai Building,

  South Bazar, Kannur

2.Nikshan Electronics,                                      Opposite parties

    Safair Building,

    Bank Road, Kannur.

3. National Insurance Company,

    Parko tower,

    4^th floor,

     P.M.Taj Road, Kozhikode.

    (Rep. by Adv.V.V.Gopinathan)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25, 000/- as compensation including the price of the TV.

            The case of the complaint is that he had purchased a TV from 2^nd opposite party and had insured for 10years from the same shop with 3^rd opposite party. But the TV become defective on 1.4.09 and as per the instruction from 2^nd opposite party it was informed to 1^st opposite party, the service centre of LG. and a  technician from 1^st opposite party inspected the TV and he told that 3 of the parts were damaged and is to be replaced. Later on a surveyor came and taken same photos and he had given an estimate for repairing. On the next day itself they replaced the parts and received Rs.1128/- from the complainant. But it was not in working condition. So again service personals visited the TV twice but all are in vein. So they have taken the board of the TV by saying that this can be cured only from the service centre and had fitted an old board to the TV. But even today they have not brought back the board of the TV and the TV is now in open condition. This is due to the deficient service of opposite party No.1. Because of this attitude of 1^st opposite party the complainant is not in a position to submit claim form before 3^rd opposite party. So the complainant had suffered so much of mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint.

            On receiving the notice from the Forum all opposite parties appeared and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed version. 1^st opposite party offered a settlement for rectifying the defect of the TV and complainant also agreed with it. But there after the 1^st opposite party has not turned up before the Forum and hence they are called absent and set exprte.

            2^nd opposite party filed version admitting that the complaint had purchased a TV from their shop and denied all other contentions. According to 2^nd opposite party they have no liability since there is no contention against 2^nd opposite party and hence they are unnecessary party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            3^rd opposite party also field version contending that they have not received any claim intimation nor any documents and the insured has not complied with any usual procedure as per the terms and conditions of the policy. More over the complainant had repaired the articles without getting the consent of the 3^rd opposite party and hence 3^rd opposite party has no liability. Moreover there is no relief sought against 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled any relief as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complaint’s case is that he had entrusted 1^st opposite party for servicing the TV on 1.4.09 which was purchased from 2^nd opposite party and insured with 3^rd opposite party. But 1st opposite party was not cured its defect and they had taken the board of the TV and was not returned  back. But there was no allegation against 2^nd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party  in the  pleadings and evidence except that they were seller and insurer. The 1^st opposite party admitted before the Forum that the board of the TV with them and was ready to bring back and fitted to the TV of the complainant after curing defects. But there after they were neither filed version nor turned up before the Forum for fulfilling the assurance given before the Forum. This itself shows the deficiency of opposite party No.1 for which they are liable to compensate the complainant by completely curing the defects of the TV and keep in working condition without charging any amount from the complaint. The 1st opposite party is also liable to pay. Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive it. There is no claim against opposite parties 2 and 3 and hence they are exonerated from liabilities.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to keep the TV in working condition after curing the defect without levying any amount from the complainant and to give Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order and if not the complainant can execute the order as per the Consumer protection act.

                                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                             Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the  complainant

A1.Cash bill issued by OP2

A2.Certificate for special package policy of National Insurance co. issued byOP3

A3.Invoice issued by OP1

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainannt

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                /forwarded by order/

                                                Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.