DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.100/2008

Chenthamara.K,

S/o.Krishnan,

Krishnapriyam,

Chekkini, Paruvasseri(P.O),

Vadakkenchery,

Palakkad District. - Complainant

(By Sri.Ramesh.A, Authorised person)

Vs

1. Authorised Samsung Service Centre,

15/766(1), DWARAKA,

Kunnathurmedu,

Palakkad 678013.

(By Adv.Kamal Chand)

2. DADWINGS,

Samsung Digital Plaza,

Stadium Bye Pass Road,

Palakkad.

3. Kavalackal Distributors,

Near Highway Garden Apartments,

Challikavattom Road,

Vyttila(P.O),

Cochin 682019. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

The case of the complainant in brief:

Complainant purchased a Refrigerator and a DVD player under exchange for Rs.10,000/- as per an offer announced by the Samsung Company. The advertisement regarding the offer was published in Malayala Manorma daily. The period of the offer was from 01/08/07 to 15/09/07. Complainant purchased the goods on 25/08/07. The grievance of the complainant is that DVD player purchased was not functioning properly. Several times it was sent for repair within the period of warranty itself. After repair also the set

was not functioning properly. Now the set is with the service centre. Complainant claims a total sum of Rs.7000/- including the price of the DVD player.

2. 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. 2^nd opposite party even though appeared in person has not filed any version. 3^rd opposite party was set exparte.

3. 1^st opposite party denies the entire case of the complainant. According to 1^st opposite party, the said DVD player was entrusted for repair with 1^st opposite party by one Ramesh. The delay in repairing is due to the non availability of spare parts from the company. As soon as 1^st opposite party received the spare parts, DVD player was repaired and it was informed to the complainant. Complainant never came to take back the same. Further contention of 1^st opposite party is that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the manufacturer is not impleaded.

4. The evidence adduced by both parties consists of chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant and chief affidavit filed by 1^st opposite party.

5. Now the issues under consideration are:

1. Whether the goods supplied by 1^st opposite party is defective one?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost?

6. Issues 1 & 2:

The case of the complainant is clearly established from Ext.A1 to A4 series. Ext.A1 bill dtd.25/08/07 issued by 2^nd opposite party evidence the fact that goods purchased were within the period of the offer. Ext.A2 warranty card, reveals the fact that warranty period extends upto 25/09/08. In Ext.A3, 1^st opposite party has specifically stated that the DVD player is not working properly. The contentions of 1^st opposite party that the DVD player was repaired as soon as the spare parts were received and the same was informed to the complainant is not supported by any convincing evidence. Hence not acceptable.

7. From the available evidence on records, we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing a strong case in his favour. It is clear that 2^nd opposite party has supplied a defective DVD player to the complainant. 2^nd opposite party has also not

adduced any contra evidence to that one tendered by the complainant. The act of 1^st opposite party in not repairing the same even though occurred within the period of warranty is clear deficiency in service. Further 2^nd opposite party, the dealer cannot escape from liability under the head of non joinder of manufacturer as necessary party. Complainant has direct contact with the dealer only. Complainant has not made out any deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.

8. In the result, complaint allowed. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.2700/- (Rupees Two thousand and seven hundred only) being the price of the DVD player together with Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

9. Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of September, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Invoice No.340 dtd.25/08/2007issued by 2^nd opposite party to complainant

Ext.A2 – Warranty card

Ext.A3 – Work Order form

Ext.A4 – Copy of advertisement published in the Malayala Manorama daily

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Costs (Allowed)

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings