Date of filing :22-01-2009 Date of order :04-02-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC. No. 192/09 Dated this, the 4th day of February 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Joseph.C.A, Jose House, Anakkallu, } Complainant Shankarampadi.Po. Chengala Via. Kasaragod. 671541. (In Person) 1. Adonis Electronics Pvt Ltd, Customer Relation Center, } Opposite parties 7. Chettipeedika.Po. Pallikunnu, Kannur.4. (Adv. C.V.Narayanan Thalassery) 2. Manager, ONIDA Customers Relation Centre, Kasaragod-Nayak’s Road, Anebagilu. Kaban Shopping Arcade. (Exparte) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The skeletal facts of the complaint The complainant obtained the service warranty of his ONIDA TV extended by the Opposite party for a period of 2 years from 24-08-07 to 23-8-09 on payment of Rs.1075/-. The TV went out of order and a complaint was registered with opposite party for service on 9-7-2009. After many calls on 17-7-09 one mechanic checked the TV and assured that the defect will be rectified within a week. Thereafter complainant contacted opposite parties several times but on all occasions opposite parties told that the TV will be repaired soon. The complainant’s request for a spare TV is also rejected by the opposite party No.1. Now the complainant and his family could not watch the programmes telecasted in the TV and therefore the complaint for an order for a compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 2. Though notice to opposite party No.2 served, Opposite party No.2 did not care to appear before the Forum. Hence opposite party No.2 is set exparte. Version of Opposite party No.1 in brief Opposite party No.2 is the service franchisee of Onida products. Though complainant registered his complaint on 9-7-2009 the attempts to contact the complainant over phone was not successful since the calls were not attended on 17-7-09. They succeeded to contact him and a technician attended the complaint on 17-7-09 itself and informed the complainant that the LOT (Line Output Transformer) of the TV is damaged and it should be replaced by a new one. Since the TV set was 8 years old the spare parts were not easily available in the market. The opposite parties promised that it will be replaced as soon as it is available in the market. The chase for LOT was brought to function only on 16-09-2009 immediately on receipt of the same opposite parties contacted complainant but complainant vehemently refused to accept the installation of the LOT. The TV was not substituted temporarily since the complainant was a stranger and there was no such contract between them. There was no stipulation to rectify the complaint within 7 days of complaint. The TV Models are subject to fast changes and therefore the components of bygone and out dated models are not easily available in the market. The concerned companies are reluctant to manufacture spare parts of old fashioned models as it may not be viable. They have made earnest effort to make the LOT available and immediately after the receipt of consignment they contacted the complainant and informed him on 16-9-2009 that they are ready to install the component at any time of his choice and convenience. But the complainant refused to accept the offer of service and filed this complaint. The opposite parties had collected Rs.1075/- towards the charge for an extended warranty for two years. The opposite parties does not assure any laxity since the availability of a component is beyond their control. There is no willful or deliberate delay on their part. The LOT purchased by the opposite parties is still retained by them. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A3 marked. He faced cross- examination by the counsel for the opposite party No.1. The proprietor of opposite party No.1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant on the affidavit filed by him in tune with version. Both sides heard. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that inspite of the warranty extended for a period of 2 years the opposite parties committed laches to provide the service when required. 5. According to opposite parties the warranty provided by them were the continuation of the original warranty with the same terms and condition as that of original. So all the terms and conditions of the original warranty is applicable in this case also. We don’t think that the original warranty contain any clause which would allow the opposite parties to take inordinate time to provide the service. Further when the opposite parties undertakes to provide service after collecting the service charge, a customer in the ordinary circumstances will be under the belief that the service provider is equipped with all facilities including the components for repair to render the service required by the customer. When a service provider opens a service center he would give a message to the people that he is well equipped for the services offered by him. The opposite parties took a contention that the TV Models are subject to fast changes and therefore the components of bygone and outdated models are not easily available in the market and the concerned companies are reluctant to manufacture spare parts of old fashioned models as it may not be viable. Whether such a condition is available in the original warranty?. Whether the customer was ever made aware about these contingency? It is pertinent to mention that the opposite parties extended the service warranty to the TV of the complainant after fully knowing that it is an old model of TV and its components may not be easily available in the market. Whether this fact was disclosed to the complainant at the time of extending the warranty of service? These questions are remained unexplained. 6. The Opposite party No.1 has no case that the scarcity of the components of the TV of the complainant in the market was intimated to him at the time of extending the warranty. The complainant posed a question before us that what will be the fate of his TV if the required component is not available in the market and in that case what will be benefit for him in extending the warranty by paying the necessary charges. Hence we are of the opinion that the long delay in searching for the component (LOT) of the TV of the complainant that too after reporting the complaint is against the conditions of service and it amounts to deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. But the claim of the complainant for the cost of TV is highly excessive and it has no logic. Therefore the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1075/- that collected from the complainant towards the extension of warranty along with compensation of Rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 29-8-01. Cash bill issued by Amrith, Kasaragod. A2. Customer’s Warranty Card (JVC Onida Service Centre) A3. Cash Memorandum issued by Adonis Electronics Pvt.Ltd. PW1.Joseph.C.A DW!. Arun Chandran Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
