DOF.27.12.2010

DOO.29.3. 2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy              : Member

Dated this, the 29^th     day of  March     2011

CC.312/2010

Ashokan.E.T.K.,

Elathodath Thazhe Kuniyil,

Nedumbram,

Cdhokli.P.O. 670 672                                           Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.C.P.Jayan)

1.Krishna Home Appliances,

   AVK Nair Road,

   Thalassery.

2. Mirc Electronics Ltd.,

    ONIDA House,

    G-I MIDE,

    Mahakali Caves Road,

    Anderi (East)

    Mumbai 400093                                                Opposite parties                                                         

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the cost of the TV set with 12% interest from the date of purchase and a sum of `2,500 as compensation together with cost of this proceeding.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased an Onida T.V 21” television from the 1^st opposite party, who is the authorized dealer of Onida TV, the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer. There is one year warranty period. But soon after the installation the TV set developed some problems. Sometimes while working the TV will automatically get off sometimes entire options of the remote controller will become changed. The complainant complained about this defect to the 1^st opposite party, the authorized dealer of 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party sent authorized technicians and after examining the TV they made believe the complainant that the problem had been cured. But same complaints repeated and the technician inspected the set again they could not found out the actual cause of complaint. The condition remained as same as earlier. Company’s technician inspected the TV set 6 times and tried to cure the complaint, but all the attempts went in vain. The same problem continued to exist even now. The TV set kept in idle, at present. The authorized technician instead of replacing the TV extended the warranty period for 6 more months. Complainant sent lawyer notice on 7.8.10 requesting them to replace the TV set. Both the opposite parties received the notices 2^nd opposite party sent a false reply. The allegation in the reply notice that they were ready to replace the printed Circuit Board in full and was also   ready to extent the warranty for another 6 months and when the technician called on him with the equipments, the complainant was refused to accept the proposal and the technicians were driven out of the complainant’s house etc. is false and denied. The reply notice contains full of lies. As per the postal acknowledgement the 1^st opposite party received his notice on 11.8.10 but they reluctant to sent a reply. Complainant is a coolie worker and it is his desire to have a TV from him and his family but opposite party spoiled this desire. The problem in the TV set arise from the very beginning itself.Though it was repaired 6 times, the defects could not be cured by the technicians of the company. Complainant approached 1^st opposite party several times with request to replace the TV set, but they did not heed to his request. Complainant suffered much mental agony due to this. The opposite party by selling the defective TV committed the offence of unfair trade practice. Complainant is entitled for the remedy and hence this complaint.

          Forum sent notice to the opposite parties after receiving the complaint .Though they were received the notice and there by acknowledgment returned  both the opposite parties remained absent  through out the proceedings. Due to continuous absence  the opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte. Exparte evidence of the complainant was taken and Exts.A1 to A4 marked.

          The main point to be considered are whether the TV set purchased by the complainant from 1^st opposite party, the authorized dealer of 2^nd opposite party is defective and the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination in tune with the complaint, Exts.A1 receipt proves that complainant purchased an Onida CTV 21” TV from 1^st  opposite party,  Krishna Home Appliances  for an amount of ` 9410.44 on 24.8.09.Ext.A2 to A4 shows that complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties.  1^st opposite party did not respond to the notice at all. Ext.A2 lawyer notice stated in detail that the technician came 6 times and tried to cure the problem. But all the task went in vain and the problem still persist. It is also pointed out that instead of repairing or replacing the TV they have only extended the warranty for 6 more months. Ext.A3 reply of 2nd opposite party alleged that there is only provision for repair in the warranty and not a replacement of brand new one TV set. It is also seen stated that being a new TV set the company was ready to replace the printed Circuit Board in full and he is also  ready to offer an extent warranty of  another 6 months. Ext.A3 shows that opposite party admitted that a subject mater TV is a new one and it is defective. Opposite party has not denied the allegation of the complainant that the same set subject to be repaired for 6 times by their authorized technician. Warranty is offered to be extended only because of accepting the conditions of the set. The available evidence makes it clear that the new TV set was purchased from 1^st opposite party had been defective. Opposite party did not say that they were able to rectify the defect.  Consumer purchased a TV set for the purpose of his daily use how far it is influenced the  daily life of  a family is quite understandable. If the set is defective it is quite natural that in the ordinary course of dealings consumer wanted to get it repaired as early as possible. Ext.A3 itself makes it evident that complainant tried several times to get the set repaired. The story of offer and all are part of the tactics merely to deal the consumer . The consumer that too, a village coolie worker after purchasing a new TV if not able to use it due to the defect of the set and  face a situation  helpless except keeping it idle will naturally created great mental  agony to the complainant  and his family  especially the children. Opposite parties are liable to answer and to take measures to substitutes the loss sustained by the complainant. The offer on the part of opposite party is only a mere tactics and not a genuine attempt to solve the problem. If it was genuine they might have taken an interest to solve the problem during the period of attempting to repair the defect 6 times. The defect could not be cured even if it they had attempted to repair in 6 times is only due to low quality of the set. Hence opposite parties are liable for the loss sustained by the complainant.

          In the light of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to return the amount of price paid by the complainant. Opposite parties are also liable to pay `1000 as compensation together with an amount of `1000 as cost of these proceedings. If the opposite parties failed to pay the amount in time they shall be liable to pay 12% interest for the entire amount from the date of order.The TV set has to be returned to opposite party on receiving the amount.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of ` 9410 (Rupees Nine thousand Four hundred and ten only) the price  paid by the complainant for purchasing the TV together with a sum of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and an amount of  `1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay  12% interest upon the entire amount due  from the date of order till  realization of the amount. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days of pronouncement of this order. Complainant shall return the TV set to opposite party on receiving the amount.

                   Sd/-                   Sd/-                      Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Bill issued by 1^st OP

A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A3.Reply notice

A4.Postl AD

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined either side: Nil                                          

                           /forwarded by order/

                     Senior Superintendent

Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum, Kannur.