Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/172/2015

Mr.S.Ilaiyaraja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adonis Electronics Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

13 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  11.09.2015

                                                                   Order pronounced on  :  13.04.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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

 

WEDNESDAY THE  13^th   DAY OF APRIL2016

 

C.C.NO.172/2015

 

 

Mr.S.Elayaraja, Age 32,

Rep. by  his  Power of Attorney father  Srinivasan,

No.25, Arjeen flat,

S.S.Pillai Street, Ganapathipuram,

East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059.

 

                                                                             ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

Adonis Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Onida House 18^th 4^th Lane,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                   : 01.12.2015

Counsel for Complainant                       : Power of Attorney Srinivasan

Counsel for   Opposite party                     : Ex parte

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

       The Complainant purchased a Onida TV for the use at his residence. The Opposite Party is a service provider who has technicians to rectify the faults in the TV. for which, the Complainant entered into an AMC for the period 05.08.2010 to 04.08.2014 for his TV on payment of consideration of Rs.2,400/- with the Opposite Party. On 20.02.2014 the Complainant TV became fault. He registered a Complaint No.14040216380807 with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party men Mr.Bhakiyaraj, technician; Mr.Kalidoss, Area Manager and Mr.Munuswamy, incharge of the department replied to the Complainant that they will rectify the defects in the TV. However none turned up from the Opposite Party to rectify the defects in the TV, inspite of that the Complainant also contacted the Opposite Party on several occasions through phone and hence the Complainant suffered with mental agony. Since no one attended the faults, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 16.07.2014 to rectify the fault. However no one from the Opposite Party attended the fault and hence the Complainant again issued legal notice on 07.06.2015.   On 22.06.2015 Mr.Bhakiyaraj, technician attended the faults and rectified the TV to a working condition. The said technician also informed to the Complainant if any further fault arises, the same may be informed to him immediately. Within half an hour of rectification of the TV again the same was not working and though the Complainant informed to the Opposite Party no one has rectified the problem. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for compensation, for the Deficiency in Service committed by the Opposite Party.

          2. Though the Opposite Party appeared through counsel, he has not filed written version, inspite of sufficient opportunity given to him and hence the Opposite Party was set Ex parte for non filing of written version.

          3. The Complainant filed the proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A5 was marked and his oral arguments also heard.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

5.POINT:1

          The Complainant purchased a Onida TV for the use of his residence and the Opposite Party is a service provider who has technicians to rectify the faults in the TV and for which, the Complainant entered into  Ex.A1, AMC for the period 05.08.2010 to 04.08.2014 for his TV, on payment of consideration of Rs.2,400/- with the Opposite Party.

6. On 20.02.2014, the Complainant TV became fault and  he registered a Complaint No.14040216380807 with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party men Mr.Bhakiyaraj, technician; Mr.Kalidoss, Area Manager and Mr.Munuswamy incharge of the department replied to the Complainant that they will rectify the defects in the TV and  however none turned up from the Opposite Party to rectify the defects in the TV and hence the Complainant issued Ex.A2 legal notice dated 16.07.2014 to the Opposite Party  and even after that the Opposite Party has not attended the faults.

7. The AMC ends as per the Ex.A1 issued by the Opposite Party on 04.08.2014.  The Complainant informed the Opposite Party to rectify the faults on 20.02.2014 before expiry of the AMC and for such Complaint, the Opposite Party men Jothi gave the Complaint No. 14040216380807. The Opposite Party did not attend the fault and failure to provide service within the AMC period establishes that the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

8. However the Opposite Party again issued Ex.A4 legal notice dated 07.06.2015 after the AMC period and according to the Complainant after such notice the Opposite Party attended the fault and again the TV became defective within half an hour of the rectification of TV and thereafter the Opposite Party not turned up to rectify the fault inspite of Complaint made by the Complainant.  Whatever maybe the case of the Complainant, after issuance of Ex.A2 legal notice within the warranty period, the Opposite Party failed to provide service to the Complainant within the AMC period, we hold that the Opposite Party committed  Deficiency in Service.

9. POINT:2

          Since the Opposite Party failed to provide the service within the AMC period, the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted.  The Complainant prayed to order an alternative TV should be supplied to him by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is only a service provider and who can attend only service and hence the Complainant is not entitled for a TV from the Opposite Party. According to the Complainant this is the 1^st Complaint made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party by virtue of AMC.  Therefore it would be appropriate to order the Opposite Party to refund the AMC amount of Rs.2,400/- and also to pay  a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony,  besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund the AMC amount of Rs.2,400/- (Rupees two thousand four hundred  only) to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 13^th   day of April 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 05.08.2010                   AMC receipt for the period 05.08.2010 to   

                                               04.08.2014 for a consideration of Rs.2,400/-

 

Ex.A2 dated 16.07.2014                   Complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite

                                               Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 02.05.2015                   General Power of Attorney

 

Ex.A4 dated 07.06.2015                   Complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite

                                               Party

 

Ex.A5 dated 08.06.2015                   Proof for sending Ex.A4 notice

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT