BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 12.09.2014

Date of Order : 25.11.2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 687/2014

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beenakumari, Member

A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows:-

The complainant Shri Soji Cheriyan had purchased a LED LG Television, Model No. 26LS9900 of the 1^st opposite party LG Electronics India Pvt. Limited from Nandilath G Mart, Edapally, Ernakulam on 27.08.2013 at a price of Rs. 19,500/-. The product who provided with warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase on 31.03.2013 the television had stopped its functioning. The above matter was informed to both the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the 2^nd opposite party sent its service personnel to the house of the complainant on 01.04.2013 and the television had been taken to the service centre for repairs and the same has not yet been returned after repair despite specific request from the complainant. Therefore the complainant had issued a lawyer notice dated 12.06.23013 to the opposite parties demanding the repair of the television but the said notice was returned unserved. It is contended that the complainant is entitled to get the television repaired free of cost during the warranty period or to get replacement of the defective television with a new one. Hence this complaint is filed seeking a direction from this Forum to the 1^st opposite party to refund the purchase price of the television of Rs. 19,500/- or to return the defective television after full repairs free of cost in a good working condition within a period fixed by the Forum. The complainant also sought for a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience and the mental agony suffered by the complainant along with costs of proceedings.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and were served on the opposite parties. The notice issued to the 1^st opposite party was served and the notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party was unclaimed by the 2^nd opposite party, hence deemed as served on the 2^nd opposite party. But both the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum in response to the notices. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte and this complaint is being disposed of exparte after hearing the complainant.

3. The evidence in this case consisted of the exparte proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence furnished by the complainant marked as Exts. A1 to A5.

4. On the above pleadings, the following issues emanated

for the consideration of this Forum :

i) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in

service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged ?

ii) If so whether the complainant is entitled to get refund

of the price paid or to get the television after its

repair free of costs ?

iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the

replacement of the defective television with a

brand new television ?

iv) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay

compensation and costs to the complainant ?

5, Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) : The complainant had purchased a LED LG Television manufactured by the 1^st opposite party L.G. Electronics India Private Limited from Nandilath G Mart, Edapally on 27.08.2012 as evidenced by Ext. A1 invoice No. EKM-12525 dated 27.08.2012 at a price of Rs. 19,500/-. The television purchased was provided with one year warranty from the date of purchase. The television stopped functioning on 31.03.2013 and the television was entrusted to the authorised service centre for repair on 01.04.2013 as evidenced by Ext. A2 job sheet issued by the 2^nd opposite party in the letter head of 1^st opposite party wherein it is stated that the said service record is for the usage of authorised service centre only. In the above job sheet it is noticed that the symptom reported by the customer as “N/W” i.e. Not Working. It is the case of the complainant that the above television has not been returned to complainant till date after proper repair. It is seen that the 2^nd opportunity demanded an amount of Rs. 7,500/- towards service charges. The above demand is challenged by the complainant stating that the 2^nd opposite party service centre is bound to repair the defective television free of cost since the above demand is against the conditions stipulated in the warranty card. Therefore the complainant issued a lawyer notice to both the opposite parties asking for refund of the price of the television of Rs. 19,500/- paid to the 2^nd opposite party along with compensation and costs of proceedings as evidenced by Ext. A3 lawyer notice dated 12.06.2013. The lawyer notice issued to the 1^st opposite party was returned unserved with endorsement that the addressee is left as evidenced by Ext. A5 and the notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party was duly served on the 2^nd opportunity party on 18.06.2013 as revealed by the Ext. A4 acknowledgment card signed by the 2^nd opportunity party. Both opposite parties were absent and they did not file any reply to the lawyer notice. Both the opposite parties were set exparte. It is the case of the complainant that the television was purchased on 27.08.2012 and the same was entrusted for repair with the 2^nd opposite party on 01.04.2013 i.e. within 8 months of the purchase of the subject television. In the above circumstance we believe the averments of the complainant as stated in the exparte proof affidavit and the documentary evidences marked as Exts. A1 to A5, we find that the complainant has eminently proved his case that the opposite parties had rendered deficient service to the complainant by not returning the defective television after proper repair, also that there is violation of warranty condition by demanding Rs. 7,500/- during the currency of the warranty period. We find that it is an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties since they are bound to render service of the defective television free of cost during the warranty period. The 1^st issue is thus found in favour of the complainant. In the facts of the case the complainant is entitled to get the television back in good working condition after its repair free of cost since the defect was noticed during the warranty period, as promised by the 1^st opposite party or to get the refund of the price paid by the complainant. The 2^nd issue is also thus found in favour of the complainant.

6. Issue No. (iii) : The television purchased by the complainant on 27.08.2012 was entrusted for repair with the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party manufacturer on 01.04.2013 and the said television is not yet returned to the complainant after due repairs. It is not known to us whether the television was in a repairable condition or not, since the opposite parties had not responded even to the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. Therefore we come to a conclusion that the television is not repairable due to its inherent manufacturing defect. The allegations raised by the complainant are proved by the exparte proof affidavit and through the documentary evidences marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective television or to get refund of the price paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. Therefore we direct the opposite parties to replace the television OR to refund the price of the television purchased by the complainant with interest.

7. Issue No.(iv) : Even though the complainant had entrusted the defective television with the 2^nd opposite party for repair on 01.04.2013, the said television has not been returned to the complainant till date. Thus the complainant and his family could not see the programmes in the television from 01.04.2013 onwards. This caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Therefore we find that complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony suffered by him. Accordingly we fix the amount of compensation at Rs. 10,000/-.

8. Had the opposite parties refunded the price of the defective television when they received the lawyer notice dated 12.06.2013, this complaint would not have been filed by the complainant. The complainant had spent his valuable time and money to contest the case before this Forum. We find that the complainant unnecessarily dragged to this Forum to redress his genuine grievance. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get the costs of proceedings which we fix at Rs. 5,000/-.

9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows :

1. The opposite parties shall refund the purchase price

of the television of Rs. 19,500/- with interest @ 12%

per annum from 27.08.2012, the date of payment

till the date of realisation OR to return the defective

Television, after proper repairs free of cost, in a good

working condition with proper warranty.

2. The opposite parties shall pay to the complainant an

amount of Rs.10,000/ towards compensation for the

metal agony suffered by him.

3. The opposite parties shall also pay to the complainant

an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of

proceedings.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the opposite parties shall jbe jointly and severally liable to comply with the above Orders failing which the amounts due shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the 30^th day of the receipt of a copy of this Order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of November, 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch of the Order :

By Hand / By Post :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :- Nil