Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/31/2008

M.Ramkrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electronic Service Co - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sundharlingam

09 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   28.01.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   09.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.31/2008

WEDNESDAY THIS  9^TH   DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

M. Ramakrishnan,

At A 48 Sembiam Police Quarters,

Perambur,

Chennai 600 011.                                        .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

Electronic Service Co.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Exclusive Philips Show Room,

“Agurchand Mansion”,

New No.203, (OldNo.152),

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                       .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. B. Sundaralingam & another   

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s. V.V.Giridhar & another   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.9000/- towards cost price of  HTS 3090 Philips Home Cinema system DVD  and also to pay sum of Rs.60,000/- towards expenses incurred & mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

 1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant purchased HTS-3090-Philips Home Cinema system DVD from the opposite party  on 17.4.2007.    Within four months  of  purchase the said HTS-3090-Philips Home Cinema system DVD had several problems.  The complainant further state that he  informed the same to the opposite party and rectified the defects.    Again fault occurred in the system, CD open and close was not working.  The F.M. sound is improper lot of disturbance in the clarity  of the sound and improper function of the said system.    The complainant registered a complaint No.105808 with the opposite party service centre and new lens also fixed during the month of September 2007.    Even after that the said system was not functioning.  Accordingly the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party, on 29.11.2007 and the notice was duly received by the opposite party and acknowledged by them.   As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that they are only dealer of the manufacturer and they are not responsible for the alleged manufacturing defect as they are not manufacturer of the said product.    Therefore they are not proper and necessary party  to the above proceedings.    The opposite party also submit that though the system sold by the opposite party was in good condition as the complainant was not satisfied with the system as a good gesture Philips Electronics India Limited had offered him to replace the same with some other model.  The opposite party also state that they assured that the manufacturer is ready and willing to supply new system having no such manufacturing defect.  However the averment that the complainant was asked to pay a further sum of Rs.1000/- is hereby denied.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and no document marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.   The points for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards cost of the HTS 3090 Philips Home Cinema system DVD as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the expenses incurred and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony with cost  as prayed for?

 

 

5.      POINTS 1 & 2: -

        The opposite party arguments heard. The complainant not turned up to advance any oral arguments.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint and stated in the written arguments that he has purchased HTS-3090-Philips Home Cinema system DVD from the opposite party  on 17.4.2007 as per Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.9000/-   Immediately after the purchase within four months the said HTS-3090-Philips Home Cinema system DVD had several problems.  The complainant informed the opposite party to rectify the defects.   Even after due intimation the fault was not rectified.   Again there was fault in the system and the CD open and close is not working.  The F.M. sound is improper lot of disturbance in the clarity  of the sound and improper function of the said system.    The complainant registered a complaint No.105808 with the opposite party service centre and new lens also fixed during the month of September 2007.    Even after that the said system was not functioning.  The opposite party told that he will direct the manufacturer to supply a fresh system.  But the complainant not agreed and filed this  case claiming the cost price of the system with damage.

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the opposite party is a dealer.  The opposite party is not a manufacturer.  The opposite party is not a service provider. The complainant approached the opposite party’s show room  and  selected a HTS-3090-Philips  Home  Cinema  system DVD  and  purchase  the  same.  Since  there  are  some  defects,  he informed the  opposite  party  and  the  opposite  party  made some arrangements for rectify the defects through the service provider.    The complainant without impleading the manufacturer claiming the cost price  and compensation towards mental agony is unsustainable.   Further the complainant contended that the said system contain some manufacturing defects.  This opposite party assured that the manufacturer is ready and willing to supply a new system having no such manufacturing defect.  The claim of cost price of compensation against this opposite party cannot be granted because this opposite party have nothing to do wtih the manufacturing defect.  Equally this opposite party have no service centre except service centre provided by the manufacturer.  Further the claim of the compensation is imaginary and exorbitant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is directed to  replace the  defective HTS-3090-Philips Home Cinema system with a new one in similar model  with cost of Rs.5000/-  and the points are answered accordingly.  

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.    The opposite party is directed to  replace the  defective HTS-3090-Philips Home Cinema system DVD with a new one in similar model  with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  9^th  day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 17.4.2007   - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A2- 24.10.2007         - Copy of Service receipt.

Ex.A3- 26.11.2007         - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A4- 29.11.2007         - Copy of Ack. of the legal notice.

 

 

Opposite party’ side document: -   .. Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.