By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased a Haier TV on 08.04.2019 for Rs.14,700/- from first Opposite Party, shop. The second Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the TV. When the Complainant decided to purchase the said TV, the Opposite Parties assured that the TV is having 3 years warranty and if any complaint, they will repair or replace it. On 01.11.2019, the picture became fade and therefore the Complainant reported it to the first Opposite Party. Then, the technician of first Opposite Party tried to repair it, but failed. As per the instruction of first Opposite Party, the Complainant brought the TV to shop of first Opposite Party on 18.11.2019. The first Opposite Party agreed to replace the TV within 5 days. But, they have not replaced it till 30.12.2019. On 30.12.2019, they brought a new TV. Therefore there is inordinate delay to replace the TV. During these period, the Complainant was unable to utilise the TV. Therefore there is unfair trade practice from the Opposite Parties. Hence this compliant to get Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation from the Opposite Parties.
3. Both Opposite Parties are ex-parte.
4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 and A2.
5. Though the Complainant filed the complaint against dealer and manufacturer as first and second Opposite Parties, in his proof affidavit, he affirmed that there is no omission from the first Opposite Party and therefore he withdraws the case against the first Opposite Party. Ext.A1 is the replacement delivery note and Ext.A2 is the invoice. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext. A1 and A2 prove the case of the Complainant. There is no contra evince to the evidence given by the Complainant. Hence this complaint is to be allowed. The complainant wants to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. According to this Commission, those are exorbitant amount. Therefore, we assess the compensation as Rs.3,000/- and cost as Rs.2,000/-.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The second Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from today.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of May 2022.
Date of Filing:-20.02.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Santhosh. E. R. Driver.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Goods Replacement Delivery Note. Dt:29.12.2019.
A2. Tax Invoice. Dt:08.04.2019.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
