BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 191/2015  Filed on 11/05/2015

ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

                        The complainant purchased a 50”LCD PLASMA LG TV, model from LG authorized dealer, Nandilath G Mart.  On 07/10/2013 the TV stopped functioning and the complainant informed the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties about it and the 3^rd opposite party’s service personal visited the complainants home and inspected the television.  The television was taken to 3^rd opposite party’s service centre for repair and it was returned back to the complainant on 09/10/2013 making him believe that defect was rectified and it was fully in functional condition.  Rs.1,123/- was also collected as service charge.  On reaching home, when complainant tried to view the television he found that instead of picture it showed white lines.  On the same day itself complainant informed the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties about the defect occurred after 2^nd and 3^rd respondent’s repair and servicing.  Next day complainant informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite party.  After 3 weeks, service personnel from the 3^rd opposite party’s office visited the complainant and tried to repair the television.  But its performance only aggravated.  The television set was again taken to the service centre. After few days when complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party’s office and the complainant was informed that the panel got damaged while repairing and they are ready to replace the panel within few days.  Even after the above said assurance and repeated request by the complainant to get back the television repaired, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not respond.  After 3 months, on  12/02/2014, the 3^rd respondent called the complainant asking him to pay half the amount of cost of new panel.  The opposite parties breached all the essential conditions of sale and service and the main purpose of the television could not be accomplished.  The defect of the television were informed to the opposite parties on may occasion.  But no proper service was rendered to cure the defect.  Since the television were not properly working, the complainant suffered great inconvenience and severe loss.  The complainant sent a registered lawyer’s notice dated 12/05/2014 to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties demanding the amount.  They received the notice on 30/05/2014 and refused to pay the amount or sent any reply.  Hence the  complaint. 

                        1^st opposite party filed version stating the following contentions.  The warranty for the TV is for one year from the date of purchase and the warranty expired on 28/08/2011.  Admittedly the complaint arose only on 07/10/2013.  It is true that the complainant again registered a complaint.  The averment that the panel got damaged while doing repairs by 2^nd opposite party is denied.  At present the parts of the model is not available.  Therefore the repair is impossible.  1^st opposite party is considering this aspect and also keeping the good customer relationship to supply a new TV at 30% discount from MRP.  Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        2^nd & 3^rd opposite party was set ex parte. 

                        Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P5 marked.  PW1 was cross examined by 1^st opposite party.  But the 1^st opposite party has not filed affidavit and not produced any documents. 

                 Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

            Issue Nos. (i) & (ii) : The Television stopped functioning and the complainant informed 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties on 07/10/2013.  It can be seen from Ext.P1 dated 09/10/2013 that the television was repaired and an amount of Rs.1,123/- was paid by the complainant.  Thereafter the television was repaired several times and but not rectified the defects of television by opposite parties.  Finally the complainant got information that the panel got damaged while repairing and the 3^rd opposite party demanded him to pay half of the amount of cost of new panel.  Then the complainant was not agreed to pay the amount. 

                        1^st opposite party filed version and stated that considering this aspect and also keeping the good customer relation they were ready to supply a new Television at 30% discount from MRP.  The warranty condition was not produced.  The television was in the custody of opposite parties.  Opposite parties has not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.

                        In view of the above discussions we find that the acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

                         In the result complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the defective TV with a new television of the same price and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only)  as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization. 

                        A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2022.

C.C.No.191/2015

          APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

               NIL

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

              NIL

                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT