IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016
Filed on 09.02.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.48/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Sudhakaran. K. 1. L.G. Electronics India Ltd.
Lalitha Bhavan Represented by its authorized Officer
North Aryad P.O. 40/1270, Vasudeva Building
Alappuzha T.D. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin
2. T.V. House, Proprietor
Kavalckal Buildings, Cullen Road
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased an LCD TV on 1.11.2010 from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,253/-. The product has one year warranty and thereafter the complainant took an AMC with the first opposite party for a further period of 4 years. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.3594/- for taking the Annual Maintenance Contract. While so the AMC was in existence the product became defective and defect has been intimated to the opposite Parties. But the first opposite party failed to rectify the defect. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the TV along withs compensation and costs.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice against the first opposite party was returned as left. Notice against the 2nd opposite party was served, but not appeared before this Forum, hence set ex-parte.
3. Complainant produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
5. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a TV from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party on 1.11.2010 for an amount of Rs.12,253/-. The product has one year warranty. Thereafter the complainant has taken an AMC with the first opposite party for a period of 4 years commencing from 2.5.2012 to 1.5.2016. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3594/- for taking the AMC. While so when the AMC was in existence he the TV became defective and the defect was intimated to the opposite parties. But the opposite party failed to rectify the defect, hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Complainant produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 1.11.2010, Ext.A2 is the leaflet and Ext.A3 is the copy of the AMC. On a perusal of the documents, it can be seen that the complainant purchased an LG TV with one year warranty. Thereafter he took an AMC for a further period of 4 years commencing from 2.5.2012 to 1.5.2016. The said TV was damaged within the said period of the product became defective. The complainant has taken the AMC after remitting an amount of Rs.3594/- on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite parties that the same will be repaired free of cost if any defect occurred within the AMC period. According to the complainant, the opposite party also assured that the defective product will be replaced with a new one if the same can’t be repaired. But the opposite parties have not shown any earnest effort to rectify the defect even after getting an intimation from the complainant. The non-compliance of the assurance on the part of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. According to the complainant, the TV was not working properly. The complainant claimed refund of the price of the TV, since the TV was purchased in the year 2010 and no manufacturing defect is proved, this Forum can’t direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the TV as prayed for. Since the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect which arose within the AMC period they have committed deficiency in service. So the complaint is allowed partly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to rectify the defects of TV within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3594/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred and ninety four only) which he was paid for taking the AMC with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards the compensation and costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2014.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Invoice dated 1.11.2010
Ext.A2 - Leaflet
Ext.A3 - Copy of the AMC
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
