Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

215/2014

Mr.John.D.Britto - Complainant(s)

Versus

1)M/s.Croma Outlet, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Gurumoorthy

18 May 2015

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  07.11.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  18.05.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 18^th    DAY OF MAY  2015

 

C.C.NO.215/2014

 

 

Mr.John D. Britto,

S/O Sebastian

A S Mansion, Room No # 113,

8^th Cross Street, Sowrashtra Nagar,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai 600 094.                                                    ..  Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.M/S Croma Outlet, A-5 Khanna Building, Near Tanishq Jewellers & Odyssey, Opp.to Mc Donalds Restaurant, Anna Nagar Roundtana, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040   2.M/S LG PVt Ltd., 58. Jawaharlal Nehru Road, 100 Feet Road (Near Ambica Empire Hotel) Vadapalani Chennai 600 026.
		… Opposite parties

Date of complaint                                     : 12.11.2014

Counsel for Complainant                          :S.Guru Moorthy

Counsel for Opposite party                          : Ex parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

BY TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,MEMBER II

 

The complaint is being filed by the complainant seeking direction to direct the opposite party to replace the defective product of the same model and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering and for cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complaint had purchased a LG 32 LED television model No.32LB563B for his sister marriage from the first opposite party on 28.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.26,400/- including tax and the complainant asked whether they could send the product to Trivandrum. The 1^st opposite party refused to deliver at Trivandrum and however the product was delivered only at the complainant’s residence on 29.06.2014. On 30.06.2014 the complainant received a call from LG television for installation of the TV and the complainant requested the technician of the 1^st opposite party that he wanted to get it installed in Kerala and the technician asked the complainant to register a call with LG branch in Trivandrum to send a LG technician.

          2. The complainant sent the said TV to Trivandrum through ST courier service which was delivered on 04.07.2014 in Trivandrum. The complainant immediately called the LG customer care for installation Mr.Akhil, the LG technician came to the complainant’s residence on 05.07.2014 for installation of the TV, and while he opened the package of the TV found that the display of the TV was not in good condition. Immediately the complainant called the LG customer care and reported the same and they assured to replace the TV. Then on 19.07.2014 the complainant called the LG technician in Chennai who inspected the said package said that the outside pack and thermocol inside to protect the display of the television were not damaged and did not have any symptoms of the transportation damage and he said that there was a manufacturing defect in the product sold.

          3.The complainant immediately took the product to the first opposite party on the same day, a manager Mr.Karthick inspected the product and assured to the complainant that the product would be replaced on 21.07.14  and however there was no response  from the first opposite party. The complainant received a phone call from the opposite party,the manager Mr.Karthick who said that the product would not be replaced.

          4.Then the complainant sent legal a notice on 08.09.2014  to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party stating the manufacturing defect and for compensation which was acknowledged by the 2^nd opposite party on 10.09.2014 and the 1^st opposite party sent a replay stating that the manufacturer is solely responsible for the product’s defect and for  replacement . There was no reply from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant was facing problems from the next day of purchase of the product i.e from 05.07.2014 for which the opposite party’s 1 & 2  are liable for negligence    to compensate him for the defective product sold to him. Hence the opposite party’s 1 & 2 are liable to replace TV of the same model along with compensation. Hence the complainant.

          2.Even though the 1^st and 2^nd was served with notice   they failed to appear and they were  set  exparte.

          3. The complainant filed  the proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant.

          4. The complainant had also filed his written arguments and the oral argument of the complainant was also heard.

5.THE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the LED TV purchased by the complainant and   the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service ?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.POINT:1

          The contention of the complainant is that on 28.06.2014 he had purchased a LED TV Model NO.32LB563B for his sisters marriage from the 1^st opposite party on payment of Rs.6,000/- including  tax it was delivered by the 1^st opposite party on 29.06.2014 at the complainant’s residence as per Ex.A1, the complainant received a phone call from the LG technician of the 1^st opposite party to install the TV , the complainant requested him that he wanted to get it installed in Kerala who in turn asked the complainant to register a call with LG branch in Trivandrum for a technician. The complainant sent the TV through ST Courier service which was delivered on 04.07.2014 in Trivandrum. The LG customer care was called immediately for installation and a technician Mr.Akhil came to the home of the complainant while he opened the package of the TV said that the display of the said TV was not in a working condition. The complainant called the LG customer care and they assured that they would replace the TV. On 19.07.2014 another LG technician inspected the TV and said that the outside pack and thermocol inside to protect the display of the TV were not damaged and did not have any symptoms of transportation damage and there is   possibilities of manufacturing defect in the product sold. The complainant approached the first opposite party on the same day Mr.Karthick, the manager inspected the product and assured for the replacement of the TV by 21.07.2014 in spite of the complaint made to the first opposite party and the customer care of the first opposite party has not able to rectify the defect and even though legal notice was sent to replace the TV and for compensation for caused metal agony and deficiency in service. Though the  1^st and 2^nd opposite party have acknowledged the notice there was no reply from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant received the reply notice from the 1^st opposite party which is marked as EX.A3. But nothing was done and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party have failed to respond to the complainant. As such the complainant had come forward with this complainant seeking to replace the LED TV of the same model as purchased by him and for compensation and cost. There is no contra evidence to the evidence of the complainant as the opposite parties had remained ex parte. Hence the Forum from the evidence of the complainant and on the basis of EX.A1 to A5 this Forum comes to the conclusion that the complainant had established the fact that the LG 32 LED TV purchased   under EX.A1 for his sister marriage is having inherent manufacturing defect and the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service as they failed to replace the TV and accordingly this point is answered.

7.POINT 2:

As we have decided in point No.1 that the complainant established that the LG 32 LED television purchased under EX.A1 is having inherent manufacturing defect and the opposite parties committed negligence and deficiency in service, that  the opposite parties 1 & 2 are  liable to compensate the complainant by replacing  the TV of the same model and for metal agony and suffering to the complainant towards which this  Forum considered that it would be appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- as  compensation apart from the complainant is also entitled to another sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint and  this point is answered accordingly.

                In the result, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1& 2 are jointly or severally ordered to replace the LG 32 LED TV model No.32LB563B as per EX.A1 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation and a sum of Rs. 3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of the complaint to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are further ordered to pay the above amounts within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

 

        Dictated  to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced  by us on this 18^th May 2015.

 

MEMBER – II                                                                       PRESDIENT

 

LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28 06 2014                   Cash Bill from the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 08.09.2014                   Legal Notice sent to the opposite parties

Ex.A3 dated 17.09.2014                   Reply from the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 10.09.2014                   Acknowledgement Card acknowledged

                                                By 2^nd opposite party.

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                                       PRESDIENT