O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of C.P. Act for getting relief against the opposite party. 

                2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant purchased a Thoshiba Led, CTV Model 29 PU 200 Model T.V set from the shop of 1^st opposite party on 13.09.2013.  At the time of purchasing the T.V, the 1^st opposite party give an assurance to the complainant that if any complaint occurred to this T.V set all this complaint can be rectified by the 1^st opposite party alone.  The said T.V is installed in the house of the complainant by the technician of 1^st opposite party.  When the complainant used this T.V about one week the pictures shown in the T.V are become not visible, so the complainant complained this issue to the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party directed the complainant to contact N.J. Electronics, Thiruvalla and the technician from the said N.J. Electronics examined the T.V set from the residence of the complainant and told to the complainant that the T.V is suffering panel complaint.  This complaint can be cured only after removing the present T.V.  This N.J. Electronics is made as 3^rd opposite party in this complaint as the authorized service dealer of the goods purchased by the complainant.  This 3^rd opposite party fetched the T.V set from the complainant’s residence for repairing.  On 18.10.2013, this 3^rd opposite party handover another T.V set to the complainant.  According to him, this T.V set is only having lesser facilities and function compare to his original T.V.  The present T.V set is also a low prized one.  According to the complainant when this new T.V set installed in his house, he was absent in his house and his old mother who is having an age of 70 was only available in his house.  She is not at all competent to understand the facilities of the newly erected T.V set.  The complainant explained all the defect and less quality and performance of the present T.V set to 1^st and 3^rd opposite party.  They replied that the T.V set purchased by the complainant on prior stage has no stock at this time and when the stock comes it would be replaced to the complainant.  The complainant contended that the warranty period of the T.V set he purchased was expired on 13.09.2014.  Moreover, the opposite parties failed to rectify the genuine grievances of the complainant so far.  The act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony as well as financial difficulties to the complainant and these act of the opposite parties are defects of deficiency in service to the complainant.  Hence after entertaining the complainant this Forum may take steps to hand over a new Thoshiba LED, CTV, Model 29 PU 200 Model to the complainant and allow Rs. 30,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant filed this above complaint before this Forum and this Forum entertained this complaint and issue process against the opposite party mentioned in the complaint.  Though notices to all the opposite parties are served 1^st opposite party appeared before the Forum.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are declare exparte in this case.

                  3. The 1^st opposite party only filed version against the complainant before this Forum.  The case of the 1^st opposite party through his version is as follows:  According to this 1^st opposite party, the O.P is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  He admitted that 1^st opposite party is the authorized seller for several products of the 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is issuing warranty for such products.  He admitted that he sold the said product to the complainant as alleged.  But at the same time the installation of the T.V by 1^st opposite party’s technician is denied.  It is specifically stated that he does not provide for any after sale service to any customers.  The installation, service and other after sale matters are under the control of 3^rd opposite party, who is the authorized service dealer of the manufacturer.  According to him, this 3^rd opposite party installed the T.V set to the complainant.  1^st opposite party specifically and categorically stated that the complainant has not to inform any complaint regarding the T.V set to him and moreover he is not responsible to entertain it also.  According to him, he is unaware of the dealings between the complainant and other opposite parties and he is only connected with the complainant regarding the T.V set only.  According to the opposite party, there is no breach of contract, unfair trade practice or defective service on his part.  The complaint is only with regard to the matter of service provided by the other opposite parties.  This opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency in service, if any, on the part of other opposite parties.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed as far as 1^st opposite party is concerned.

                4. When considering the complaint, version and the records produced on the side of the complainant, we raised the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2. If it is maintainable what relief and cost can be granted?

        5. Point No.1 & 2:- On the side of the complainant, in order to prove the case he filed a chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and produced 2 documents which are marked as Ext. A1 and A2.  Ext.A1 is the original bill of the T.V set and Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the said T.V.  1^st opposite party cross-examined this PW1 but he did not adduce any evidence on the side except the version filed in his side.  The complainant deposed his case in terms of the complaint before the Forum.  According to the complainant, he purchased this T.V set from 1^st opposite party and subsequently the said T.V set became in a defective condition and the said matter inform to the opposite parties in time.  As per the deposition of PW1, it reveals that there is a panel complaint happened in his T.V and on 08.10.2013 the 3^rd opposite party handed over a new T.V set to the complainant.  But according to the complainant, the new handed over T.V set is only having less specification and the cost is also so less compare to his former T.V.  So it is clear that the opposite parties are indirectly admitted the defect of complainant’s former T.V and as a result as per the direction of 1^st opposite party 3^rd opposite party handed over a new T.V set to the complainant.  It is very important to see that this 3^rd opposite party admitted that when the old specified T.V set is available he would be ready to replace the said T.V set to the complainant.  As per Ext.A2 warranty card, it is seen that the warranty period was expired on 13.09.2014.  It is pertinent to see that the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum on 12.09.2014.  The 1^st opposite party cross examined PW1, though he is cross-examined in detail nothing brought out to disbelieve his case before this Forum.  The evidence of PW1 against 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party is unchallengeable since they are exparte in this case.  In cross-examination, the complainant specifically stated that he purchased the said T.V from 1^st opposite party and as per the direction of 1^st opposite party 3^rd opposite party examined the T.V set and hand over a new T.V set to him.  When we peruse the whole case of the complainant it reveals that his former T.V set is not functioning properly and he has every right to get a new T.V set with same specification.  1^st opposite party is miserably failed to safeguard the interest of complainant or failed to substitute a new T.V set with same specification.  The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are committed clean deficiency in service and they are answerable to the complainant.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to redress the genuine grievances of the complainant in this case.

                6. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to replace a Thoshiba Led, CTV Model 29 PU 200 Model T.V set to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, and the complainant is directed to return the T.V set in his possession after obtaining a sufficient receipt. 

                                                OR

The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with an  interest of 10% from the date of filing (12.09.2013) of this case, and the complainant is directed to return the T.V set in his possession after obtaining a sufficient receipt. 

2.  The complainant is also eligible for an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation from opposite party 1 to 3 with interest of 10% from the date of order of this case.
3. The cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is also allowed to be realized from opposite parties 1 to 3 with an interest of 10% from the date of order.
4. A warranty for one year from the date of delivery of the T.V is also allowed in favour of the complainant.

                Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2015.

                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                        P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                     (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)        :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)           :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  C. Shaji

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Original bill dated 13.09.2013 for Rs.20,000/- issued by the 

        1^st opposite party to the complainant.

A2 :  Warranty card of the T.V.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

                                                                                                       (By Order)

                                                                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                                                                              Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Shaji. C, Cheriyathu House, Chandanappally.P.O.,

                    Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta.

               (2) Proprietor, Alexo Electronics, Main Road,

        Pathanamthitta.

               (3) Officer in Charge Thoshiba India Pvt. Ltd.,

        Ernakulam (Kerala Region).

               (4) Proprietor, N.J. Electronics, Thiruvalla.

               (5) The Stock File.