KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL: 776/2003 JUDGMENT DATED:04-10-2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Managing Director, M/s Kuruvithadam Agencies (P) Ltd., Kuruvithadam Complex, : APPELLANT Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. (By adv:Sri.Sunil.C.G., S.Reghukumar & Others) Vs. Mr.A.C.Sunny Allungal, Puthenpura, Ooramana.P.O, : RESPONDENT Muvattupuzha. (By Adv:Sri.Saji Mathew) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/dealer in OP.634/02 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to refund the price of the TV ie Rs.12,500/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a TV set on 3/6/1999 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.12,500/-, allegedly manufactured by M/s AIWA Company. According to him the TV was having problems from 6 months of its purchase. It was repaired at the instance of the opposite party on 2/1/2002. The TV was found not functioning. It was found that the opposite party assembled the TV set and sold in the name of AIWA Company. For further repairs the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.4,300/- as against the agreed amount of Rs.1,300/-. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that he was a dealer of M/s Baron Electronics Limited. It is contended that it is the duty of the manufacturers to cure the manufacturing defect. It is denied that the opposite party assembled the TV set. This alleged TV was damaged due to lightning. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B8. 5. It is stated in the evidence adduced by the opposite party that M/s Baron Electronics closed down the production of the TV sets and also their Service Centre. It is pointed out by the appellant that in the lawyer notice issued the complainant had claimed only Rs.6000/-. We find that when the manufacturer has closed business the complainant cannot be blamed for not impleading the manufacturer. Evidently it is after 1 ½ years of use the unit has become non functioning. In the circumstances the direction to pay the entire purchase price appears unreasonable. As is pointed out the complainant had claimed only Rs.6000/-, in Ext.A3 lawyer notice sent. In the circumstances it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation. Hence the opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the order of the Forum ie 18/8/2003. The complainant would also be entitled for cost of Rs.2000/-. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from today (date of the order of this Commission). The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VL. | 
