KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

   APPEAL  NO. 103/2007

                                 JUDGMENT DATED:31..03..2010.

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Khadir Moideen, S/o Ameer Ali,

Managing Partner,

Jamal Sales Corporation,                                    : APPELLANT

Jamal Building, Court Road,

Palakkad.

(By Adv: M/s B.Vijayakumar & Veni.K)

            Vs.

1.C.Ramachandran, C/o Narayanan Nair,

  Sree Ragam, Ambazhakode,

  Thrikkallur (Post), Mannarkkad,

  Palakkad.

                                                                                    : RESPONDENTS

2.M/s Akal India Limited,

  Pattarwala, Industrial Estate,

  20, Moses Road, Mahalekshmi,

  Mumbai-400 011.

(By Adv: Sri.P.Rajmohan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The above appeal is filed from the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by CDRF, palakkad in C.C.4/06.  Appellant was the 1^st opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and 2^nd opposite party respectively in C.C.4/06 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale of a defective T.V. set manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party was the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party on consideration of the documentary evidence on record, especially C1 Commission report, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to make necessary arrangements  for repairing the defective T.V. set and to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- with cost of Rs.100/- or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.22,990/- being the value of the T.V. set with compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- and also interest at 8% per annum on the whole amount from the date of the impugned order till realization.  Hence the present appeal.

2. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant expressed their readiness to cure the defects in the T.V. set and to make the same defect free.  They also agreed to provide another warranty for 5 years for the repaired T.V. set.  The 1^st respondent/ complainant agreed to the suggestion and thereby produced the defective T.V. set for effecting repairs.  It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant /1st opposite party that the T.V. set has been repaired and that 1^st respondent/complainant can take back the repaired T.V. set with the fresh warranty card. A statement dated 31.03.2010 is also filed to that effect.  The counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant has also submitted that 1^st respondent verified the T.V. set and satisfied with the present performance of the repaired T.V. set.  Hence the appeal can be disposed of as settled.

          In the result, the appeal is disposed of as settled satisfaction of the decree passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in C.C.4/2006 is recorded. It is made clear that the appellant has to give a fresh warranty for a period of 5 years for the repaired T.V. set with effect from 31.03.2010.  Warranty conditions will be the same as given to new T.V.set by the manufacturer at the time of its purchase.  But the warranty period is  limited to 5 years.

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.