O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The complainant’s case is as follows:  The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.  According to the complainant, he purchased a T.V set for an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party’s shop and the same got some complaint and it entrusted to 2^nd opposite party for rectification.  It is contended that the entrustment of the T.V for rectification of the complaint is within the warranty period.  He again stated that as per the direction of 2^nd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party who came to the complainant’s residence and took the T.V for rectification.  At that time, the complainant handed over the warranty card, bill and other related papers to that person.  He further stated that 2^nd opposite party informed that a particular spare part would have to be brought from Mumbai so that 2 weeks time is necessary for its rectification.  Even after the completion of one year 2^nd opposite party failed to rectify the mistake or return the T.V to the complainant.  As a result, the complainant issued a lawyers notice to 2^nd opposite party on 02.02.2015 and the said 2^nd opposite party received the notice but no steps has been taken by the said opposite party.  According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties are deficiency in service and all the opposite parties are severally liable for this act.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to repair the T.V or for the refund of the amount, compensation etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to opposite parties 1 to 3.  All the opposite parties entered appearance through a counsel and prays time for version on different posting.  Though this Forum allowed time for filing version at last opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their version before this Forum on 18.02.2011.

                   4. The version of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is as follows:  According to the opposite parties 1 to 3 the case is not maintainable before the Forum.  He admitted that the complainant purchased a T.V set for an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the opposite party.  According to the opposite parties, there is no extended warranty for the T.V set.  The opposite parties again contended that this case is filed after 5 years from the date of purchase of the T.V so that the case is barred by limitation.  It is also admitted that the T.V set is within the possession of 2^nd opposite party.  Hence opposite parties 1 to 3 requested to dismiss this case with cost to them.  Even though the opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their version as stated above on 12.04.2016 the counsel appearing for the opposite parties give up his engagement at the time of trial.  At this juncture, we frame the following issues for consideration: 

1. Whether the case is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the complainant is proved deficiency in service against the opposite parties?
3. Regarding relief and costs?

          5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and he is examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and A2 series.  Ext.A1 is the visiting Card of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A2 series is the photocopy of advocate notice dated 02.02.2015 sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.

          6. When we peruse the proof affidavit it is to see that the content of this proof affidavit more or less as well as the same contention raised in his complaint.  PW1 deposed that he purchased an LG wall mounted big size 55 inch T.V from 2^nd opposite party’s shop for an amount of Rs.65,000/- and when it got some complaint 2^nd opposite party taken this T.V set for rectification and a complaint was also registered by the 2^nd opposite party on 03.01.2014.  According to him, the complaint of the T.V happened at the free annual maintenance warranty time.  He also deposed that 3^rd opposite party arrived his house and he handed over the T.V set along with its bill, warranty card and other related papers to him.  Even after the lapse of one year the 2^nd opposite party failed to rectify the mistake of the T.V.  The complainant issued a legal notice and subsequently filed this complaint before this Forum.  In this case, it is to see that except the complaint, proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 series no other evidence adduced by the complainant to prove his case.  But it is to be noted that even though opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their version but they did not turn up for cross-examining PW1.  Hence the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable as far as opposite parties 1 to 3 are concerned.  After the closing of evidence, we heard the complainant’s counsel.

        7. Point No.1:  The opposite parties 1 to 3 through their version they raised a serious contention to the effect that this case is not maintainable before the Forum.  When we peruse the evidence adduced in this case, it reveals that the 2^nd opposite party sold a T.V to the complainant after receiving a consideration of Rs.65,000/- and the said T.V has entrusted to 2^nd opposite party for rectifying certain defects.  Hence we can come to a definite conclusion to the effect that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties 1 to 3 and the case against the opposite parties are also maintainable.  Hence Point No.1 found accordingly.

          8. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  The next question to be considered is whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant in this case.  As we discussed earlier, it is proved that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties 1 to 3.  If so, the complaint of the T.V had been occurred within the warranty period and the next question to be considered is whether the T.V set is entrusted to 2^nd opposite party for rectifying its mistake.  It is so clear from the version that 2^nd opposite party had received the T.V set from the complainant and the same set is even under 2^nd opposite party’s possession.  Hence the purchase of the T.V set and the entrustment of the T.V set for the rectification of the complaint are proved conclusively.  Then the issue to be considered is whether the 2^nd opposite party rectified the mistake of the T.V and returned the same to the complainant within the time.  When we examine the deposition of PW1 it also reveals that so far the T.V set was not repaired and as stated earlier it is in the possession of 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties are totally failed to convince this Forum with regard to the reason for the non return of T.V after its rectification.  As a responsible manufacturer or dealer of a T.V, it is the preliminary responsibility of them to give a sufficient and convincing explanation for the above said non-performance.  The approach of the opposite parties even after the receipt of the Forum notice are also a convincing evidence of their irresponsibility and laches.  At this juncture, we have no other way except appreciating the evidence available before us.  The complainant in this case is proved the deficiency in service of the opposite parties as stated above and the evidence already adduced by the complainant is unchallengeable also.  As far as the 3^rd opposite party in this case, it is to see that he is a person under 2^nd opposite party and had taken the T.V set for rectification from complainant’s house.  Therefore, 3^rd opposite party has to be exonerated from all allegations and also found that 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the T.V set and 2^nd opposite party is the authorised dealer of the said set.  It is also observed that opposite party 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to the complainant since a free annual maintenance extended warranty was existing at the time of the entrustment of T.V for its rectification.  It is come out in evidence that the complainant’s T.V set was within the custody of 2^nd opposite party for more than 1 year for its rectification and even now the T.V set is in his shop.  The 2^nd opposite party has no sufficient explanation with regard to the inordinate delay for the rectification of the set.  This fact is also a ground to award compensation against 1^st and 2^nd opposite party in this case. 

          9. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to repair the T.V set within 1 month of the date of receipt of this order, if this opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to repair the T.V set as above the opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to return the price of the T.V set of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with an interest of 10% from 03.01.2014 (Date of registration of customer’s complaint) onwards.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards. 
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2016.

                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                 (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)              :   Not agreed

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                 :   Not agreed

Dissenting Order

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member –I) &

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):

                   We differ with the reliefs allowed as it is exorbitant as compared to the nature of the case and the evidence adduced by the complainant.  The complainant did not proved the date of purchase of T.V, Price of the T.V and whether the T.V is covered with warranty or guarantee.  But the behaviour of the opposite party 1 and 2 reveals that certain latches took place from their part in servicing the T.V set.  So we are of the opinion that the opposite party 1 and 2 are directed to handover the T.V set being repaired to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.  In default, the complainant can realise Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as cost and compensation with 10% interest from the date of this order.

                                              K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)      :     (Sd/-)

                                             Sheela Jacob (Member – II)           :     (Sd/-) 

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Vijayan Unnithan

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1  :  Visiting Card of 2^nd opposite party

A2 series :  Copy of the advocate notice dated 02.02.2015 sent by the  

                  complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.   

                                                                                           (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Vijayan Unnithan, Pallathu Aiswarya, Kunnamthanam.P.O.,

                    Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.

2. L.G. Electronics, LG Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd., 40/1270,

Vasudeva Buildings, T.K. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin.

3. Sri. Navas, Proprietor, Attinkara Electronics, Thiruvalla.
4. Sri. Santhosh, Sales Executive, Attinkara Electronics, Thiruvalla.
5. The Stock File.