CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 243/12
Thursday the 27th day of September, 2012
Petitioner : Jose Kuruvilla,
Neerakunnel House,
Ponkunnam.
(Adv. Raju Abraham)
Vs.
Opposite party : Bismi Appliances,
VII/132A,
Near Mathrubhumi,
S.H.Mount PO, Kottayam686 006.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)
Complaint filed by the complainant on 31/7/12 is as follows:-
Complainant purchased a “Philips HTS 5530” Home Theatre from the opposite party on 30/09/2010 for Rs.17250/-. The opposite party issued a warranty card and user’s manual booklet. But the said home theatre became non functioning on 23/0/11 and it was informed to the opposite party on 24/9/11. The opposite party issued a receipt of acknowledgement at the time of receiving the same but has not rectified the defects till date. The complainant purchased the home theatre from the opposite party believing the offers and assurances made by the opposite party. According to the complainant the defect caused to the home theatre is a manufacturing defect. As the opposite party has not rectified the defects in time, it has caused inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the act of the opposite party is an unlawful trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement or return of the home theatre after rectifying the defects, compensation of Rs. 25000/- and litigation cost.
Notice was served to the opposite party. But the opposite party was called absent and hence set expartee.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and documents Ext.A1 and A2.
Point No.1
Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant averred that he purchased the home theatre from the opposite party for Rs.17,250/- on 30/9/10. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced the original receipt and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant further averred that the said home theatre became defective and it was entrusted to the opposite party on 24/9/11. Evidencing the aforesaid averment the complainant produced the original job card and it is marked as Ext.A2. The complainant alleged that the home theatre became non functioning within warranty period and the said non functioning is due to manufacturing defect. As the opposite party chose not to contest the allegations and averments of the petitioner remain unchallenged. From the evidence placed on record we feel that the opposite party is deficient in their service and is liable to compensate the monetary loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point no.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.
The complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite party will repair the defective home theatre to the complainant’s satisfaction or will replace the defective home theatre with a brand new home theatre. The opposite party will also pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.500/- to the complainant.
This order will be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realiasation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of September 2012
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C) Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Retail invoice
Ext.A2-job card
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
