BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 9^th day of February 2018

Filed on : 02-03-2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.97/2017

Between

Mani S.S., : Complainant

'SMANAKA' 28/456, (party-in-person)

Girinagar Enclave,

Kadavanthra,

Ernakulam-682 018

And

1. C & MD, : Opposite parties

Lloyd Electric Engineering Ltd., (absent)

Plot No. 2, Industrial

Area, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110 011.

2. Area Service Manager,

JVL Group coll point,

Rose towers,

Kurisupally road,

Ernakualam-682 015.

3. Proprietor,

Jimat Enterprises, 37/776,

Mizpah, Exel Lane,

Elamkulam,

Ernakulam-682 020.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Complainant’s case

The complainant purchased a Lloyd T.V. on 21-03-2015 with 12 months warranty and two years additional warranty on the panel after the completion of the original one year warranty. Clause 9 of the warranty stipulate that 3 after sales service under the warranty period will be available within the limits of the City, where the authorized service centre is located . This clause is applicable in so far as the complainant is concerned as the location of the 2^nd opposite party was within the same Municipal limit. The complainant reported non-functioning of the T.V. before the opposite party’s customer care and the complaint was registered on 21-09-2016 . On 22-9-2016 one of the technician of the opposite party checked the T.V. and found that the software of the T.V. was defective and required replacement. The subject T.V. was taken by the authorized service centre, the 2^nd opposite party had after a prolonged follow up the T.V. was brought back on 7^th October 2016 after replacing the panel. The 2^nd opposite party gave a bill of Rs. 800/- towards service charges which the complainant was compelled to pay as they have threatened that the T.V. would not be delivered without making such payment. The complainant is entitled to get back the service charges collected by him forcibly and also to get Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. Hence the complaint.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party did not appear to contest the matter .

3. When the matter came up for complainant’s evidence the complaint was examined and Exbts. A1 to A8 documents were marked. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.

4. On going through the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exbts. A1 to A8 documents filed by him we find that the complainant had proved his cases alleged . The complainant had demand of refund of service charge as per Exbt. A1 E-mail communication to the 1^st opposite party which is marked as Exbt. A1 dated 20-10-2014. A reminder was issued on 4^th November 2016 by the complainant as seen to Exbt. A2. On 24-11-2016 also, the complainant repeated his demand for refund as seen from Exbt. A4. This time on 24-11-2016 the e-mail communication of the complainant was replied demanding the complainant to send a scanned copy of the warranty card to sought out the issue . Accordingly on 7^th December the complainant had sent copies of warranty card through whats-app as seen from Exbt. A5 Exb t. A6 is the bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party service agent of the 1^st opposite party for having collected the service charge for Rs. 800/- on o7-10-2016. Exbt. A7 is a photo copy of the warranty card. And Exbt. A8 is the tax invoice for Rs. 30,500/- for the purchase of the T.V. on 21-03-2015. The documents produced by the complainant would go to show that the T.V. purchased by the complainant as per Exbt. A8 on 21-03-2015 is supported by service warranty as on 07-10-2016 by way of extended warranty and the collection of the service charge during the extended warranty period was not contemplated under the warranty. Exbt. A6 bill is the service charge and not towards labour cost , transport and the cost of any component, which the complainant was not bound to pay as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Therefore, we find that there is deficiency on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in collecting service charge during the extended warranty period. The issue is found in favour of the complainant.

5. Issue No.ii. Having found issue number 1 in favour of the complainant we find that the complainant is entitled to realize Rs. 800/- collected from him by the 2^nd opposite party as service charges, along with the costs of this proceedings.

6. Issue No. iii. In the result, we allow the complaint by making the following directions:

1. The 2^nd opposite party M/s. GVL Groups cool point , Ernakulam is directed to refund Rs. 800/- to the complainant by way of Demand Draft within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the complainant by registered post.

2. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant towards the costs of this proceedings within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. Delayed payments would entail payment of interest @ 12% p.a. from 02-03-2017 , that the date of filing this complaint.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of February 2018

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of G-mail dt. 20-10-2016

A2 : Copy of G-mail dt. 04-11-2016

A3 : Copy of G-mail dt. 24-11-2016

A4 : Copy of G-mail dt. 24-11-2016

A5 : Copy of G-mail dt. 07-12-2016

A6 : Copy of cash bill dt. 07-10-2016

A7 : Copy of warranty registration card

A8 : Copy of Tax invoice cash/credit

dt. 21-03-2015

Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on:

By Post: By Hand: