<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No.243/2002 Filed on 12..06..2002<br /> Dated: 30..05..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> B. Ramachandran, Rajesh Bhavan, Cherikkoorkonam, Pazhakutty – P.O., Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 561.<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1. Deedi's The BPL Gallery, M.G.Road, Near SMV School, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. James Ninan)<br /> 2.BPL Service, T.C. 27/39, BLISS, Pattoor,Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> Addl.3rd opp. Party<br /> 3.Managing Director, M/s. BPL Sanyo Technology Ltd., Audio House, N.H.Bye Pass Road, Palakkad – 678 007.<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 21..11..2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2008, the Forum on 30..05..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased a BPL VCD on 18..08..2001 from the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.6,200/-. The said set was defective from the first day of inception itself. There was defect with regard to the volume also. The said defects were in formed to the 1st opposite party and as per their instructions the complainant entrusted the VCD to the 2nd opposite party. After that the VCD has not been repaired, it is stated with them. There is manufacturing defect in the VCD and since there was no positive response from the opposite parties, the complainant has been filed claiming either a new set with a fresh guarantee or refund Rs. 6,200/- along with compensation and costs.<br /> 2. The 1st opposite party filed version contending as follows: That they are only a dealer in Thiruvananthapuram of BPL Company. The purchase of the VCD by the complainant is admitted. The VCD was selected by the complainant only after fully satisfying with its performance. The complainant has never raised any complaint with regard to its performance at the time of selection, purchase or afterwards to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has sold standard quality product. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite parties. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.<br /> 3.The 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte.<br /> 4. The 3rd opposite party had filed their version contending that the VCD is beyond the period of warranty and it has been giving satisfactory performance from the beginning itself. The complainant had entrusted the VCD to Kallada Marketing with whom this opposite party has severed all relationship and hence this Opposite party is not responsible for the acts and omissions of Kallada Marketing. All complaints registered brought to the police of this opposite party were attended promptly and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 5. The complainant adduced his evidence by way of affidavit. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on his side.<br /> 6. The issues raised for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite part?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs?<br /> 7. Points (i) & (ii): Admittedly the VCD belonging to the complainant is in the custody of the 2nd opposite party which is evidenced by Ext.P3 also. The date of entrustment of the VCD with the 2nd opposite party as per Ext.P3 is seen as 19..04..2002. The said VCD has a warranty for a period of 1 year. From Ext.P3, it is clear that the VCD became defective during the warranty period itself. The nature of complaint noted in P3 is 'Sound Problem'. Since the defective VCD is with the 2nd opposite party and the defects in the VCD has been admitted. The complainant had entrusted the VCD with the 2nd opposite party. But they have neither rectified the defects nor returned the VCD to the complainant. Though the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for getting back the VCD, it has not been returned. The 2nd opposite party has never turned up to deny the same. In the above circumstance, this Forum is inclined to believe that the defective VCD has not been rectified and it is still in the custody of the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party, cannot simply evade its liability stating that they are only a dealer and the complainant never complained to them with regard to the defective VCD. Here pertinent point to be noted is that, the complainant had purchased the VCD from the 1st opposite party, the dealer. The VCD purchased from the 1st opposite party did not function satisfactorily during the warranty period. Complaint has been lodged with the BPL Service Centre itself as per Ext.P3. The 2nd opposite party ought have repaired the VCD and returned it to the complainant in time. The act of the 2nd opposite party in not attending to the VCD and carrying out repairs within the period of warranty is a clear case of deficiency in service. The complainant has failed to establish that the VCD has manufacturing defect. On account of deficiency in service rendered by the 2nd opposite party the complainant needs to be compensated for not attending the fault which was caused within the warranty period. During the trial the service head of the 1st opposite party was willing to replace the VCD with an identical one. Hence the 2nd opposite party is directed to handover the defective VC D of the complainant to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party shall replace the VCD of the complainant with a new one and the 2nd opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for the difficulties caused to the complainant. 3rd Opposite party is exempted from any liability since no manufacturing defect has been established.<br /> In the result, the 2nd opposite party shall return the VCD to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party shall give a defect free new VCD of the same mode to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is exempted from any liability.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.243/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness: NIL <br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> Ext.P1 : True copy of cash bill No.602 dated 18/8/01.<br /> <br /> P2 : True copy of warranty card dated 18/8/01 with serial No.D94 216 5111 7004203<br /> <br /> P3 : True copy of service bill dated 19/4/02 with work order No.VCD/3353<br /> <br /> <br /> III.Opp.parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties documents: N I L<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> ad.<br />