Kerala

Idukki

CC/88/2019

Febin Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bismi appliances - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 30.4.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2020

Present :

SMT. ASAMOL. P PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.88/2019

Between

Complainant : Febin Thomas,

Mlakkuzhiyil House,

Muttam P.O.,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Bismi Appliances,

Kalarickal Bazar, Pala Road,

Thodupuzha P.O., Thodupuzha.

2. The Manager,

New Smart Care Services,

Thattamattathil Building,

Manakkadu Road,

Thodupuzha P.O. Thodupuzha.

3. The Managing Director,

PE Electronics Ltd.,

Techweb Centre, New Link Road,

Oshiwara, Mumbai 400 102.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Case of the complainant is as follows :

1.       Complainant has purchased one LED TV  on 3.9.2016 for Rs.27900/- of model Philips LED 40 PFL 5059 # 38439 from 1^st opposite party.  It is contended that 1^st opposite party assured that TV is having high quality and it can be used for long period and also having 5 years warranty.  It is also stated by 1^st opposite party  that  5 year warranty was given during Onam season.  Another averment is that 1^st opposite party has given assurance that if any complaint is occurred during warranty period, it will be repaired in time and if

(cont....2)

- 2 -

it cannot be done under any circumstances, TV will be replaced under warranty or in the alternative refund the price of the TV. 

2.       The TV purchased by the complainant was worked without any complaint for 2 years.    During November 2018, complainant noticed black shade on TV screen and it has increased gradually.  Now half of the TV screen is having black shade.  During the initial days of December 2018, the complainant has registered a complaint through 1^st opposite party as COCO 412180064.  The service engineer has arrived after one month in January 2019.  After inspection of the TV, he said that he will call thereafter.  In spite of repeated calls by the complainant, he has not come or repaired the TV.  It is known from 1^st  opposite party that parts were not supplied by the company. 

3.       Eventhough warranty of 5 years was offered and other assurance were also given as shown above, it was not complied with.  So there is deficiency of service, complainant is entitled to replace the TV with new one or to get refund of the price of TV.  Besides, he is entitled to  compensation for deficiency of service.  Hence the complainant prayed for the following reliefs.

1.        Issue a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the damaged TV or to refund the price thereof to the complainant. 

2.       Compensation of Rs.25000/- may be ordered to be given for the deficiency of service and inconvenience caused to the complainant.

3.       Allow a cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. 

 

It seems that first opposite party is the dealer, 2^nd opposite party is the authorised service centre and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the product.

 

Notice sent to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were returned by postal authorities. Eventhough notice was given by postal employee to 2^nd opposite party, it was not accepted. Notice sent to 3^rd opposite party as per the address shown in warranty card, it was returned. Hence notice is treated as duly served as per section 28A(3) & (4) respectively and set them exparte. 1^st opposite party was represented on certain hearing dates. Thereafter, no representation or filed written version. When the case was called on 23.12.2019, 1^st opposite party was not present or represented. Hence 1^st opposite party is set exparte and posted for exparte evidence. Complainant produced 2 documents and marked as Exts.P1 & P2. Ext.P1 is the copy of invoice No.704266 dated 3.9.2016 and Ext.P2 is the copy of warranty card. No oral evidence is adduced by the complainant. (cont....3)

- 3 -

We have examined the contentions of the complainant and perused documents produced. It is seen that allegations of the complaint is having force. Opposite parties have not filed written version also. In these circumstances, we have no other alternative but to decide the case on the basis of evidence brought on record.

 

Eventhough complainant reported complaint of TV, it is not rectified. So it is a violation of warranty condition and also there is deficiency in service. It is the primary duty of a dealer to make arrangements for rectifying the defect pointed out. Price of TV was received by 1^st opposite party. Non-appearance of opposite parties leads to the conclusion that they have no dispute with regard to allegations raised by the complainant. Manufacturer is responsible to remove the defects or if it is not possible, replace the goods with new one. No action is seen taken by opposite parties to remove the defect. So they are responsible for the deficiency of service. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant must be suitably compensated.

 

Considering the entire aspects of the case, we order that the opposite parties shall remove the defect of TV pointed out by the complainant and if the defect cannot be so removed, 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties should replace it with new one of similar description within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to pay the price of goods with 12% interest from the date of purchase, till payment. Considering the facts of the case, we order to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) also to the complainant, which shall be paid by 1^st opposite party as directed above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. In the result, complaint is partly allowed.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14^th day of January, 2020

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

 

 

(cont....3) - 3 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of invoice No.704266 dated 3.9.2016.

Ext.P2 - copy of warranty card.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT