BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 525/2001 Filed on 26.12.2001

Dated : 15.04.2009

Complainant:

C.M. Sankara Narayanan, 'Sreyas', C.R.A 83, T.C 29/1742, Perumthanni, Thiruvananthapuram – 8.

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Thomson Consumer Electronics India Ltd., 44, 1^st Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-20.

    

2. M/s Thomson Consumer Electronics India Ltd., No. 38/266 A, Karshaka Road, (Near South Overbridge),Cochin-682016

    

3. M/s Maya Agencies, Opp: S.M.V. School, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. M/s V.J. Mathew&Co.)

This O.P having been heard on 16.03.2009, the Forum on 15.04.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are hat complainant purchased one Thomson 25 inch colour T.V manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 24.11.2000 at a price of Rs. 23,250/- from the 3^rd opposite party, that the said T.V had a warranty for a period of 5 years from 24.11.2000, that the said T.V had inherent defects and showed problems right from the inception and its audio system was not working properly, that on request, the 2^nd opposite party examined the said T.V and opined that the problem was due to the lack of quality in the local cable net work and advised the complainant to go in for an Asianet cable connection, that Asianet cable connection was given in the presence of the executive of 2^nd opposite party, but the problem still persisted. On 18.07.2001, the complainant sent a letter to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties explaining the whole position. On 06.08.2001 complainant sent another letter to the said opposite parties, but the letter remained unreplied. The malfunctioning of T.V set during the course of warranty established that the said T.V was having manufacturing defect which cannot be cured or rectified. Complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 07.11.2001. After receiving notice opposite parties approached the complainant and promised to replace the said T.V admitting that there was inherent manufacturing defect. Opposite parties replaced the T.V with new one which also showed similar defects as that of the old T.V. On 09.03.2002 complainant sent a letter to opposite parties to take back the replaced T.V and refund the price. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund Rs. 23,250/- with interest thereon and to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. During the pendency of the complaint before this Forum opposite parties replaced the T.V set by a new one to the complainant. Thereafter complainant issued a letter to the opposite parties stating his complete/full satisfaction to the new T.V set replaced by the opposite parties. The complainant undertook that he will withdraw the complaint, but complainant did not withdraw the complaint and has cheated the opposite parties. After replacement of the said T.V complainant has no cause of action against these opposite parties. Opposite parties replaced the said T.V with new one only for the sake of customer satisfaction. After getting information about the complaint from the complainant, technicians of the opposite parties approached the complainant in order to ascertain the complaint raised by the complainant and to rectify defects if any. Complainant did not allow the opposite parties to ascertain the defects if any to the newly replaced T.V set. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs to the opposite parties.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the television set is having manufacturing defect?

2. Reliefs and costs.

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 and C1 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed proof affidavits.

Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased Thomson colour television from the 3^rd opposite party on 24.11.2000 on payment of Rs. 23,250/- by Ext. P1. The said set was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is the service centre of the said T.V, that the said TV had a warranty for a period of 5 years by Ext. P2 from its date of purchase, and that the said TV had inherent defects and showed problems right from the inception and its audio system was not working properly. On request the service executive of 2^nd opposite party examined the TV and opined that the problem was due to the lack of quality in the local cable network. On 18.07.2001 complainant sent a letter to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties explaining the whole position by Ext. P3. But the letter remains unreplied. On 06.08.2001 complainant sent another letter by Ext. P4 to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties enclosing the copies of the previous letter. But that letter also remained unreplied. It is submitted by the complainant that the malfunctioning of the television set during the course of the warranty period establish that the CTV is having manufacturing defects which cannot be cured or rectified. Ext. P6 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 07.11.2001. Ext. P7 is the copy of the reply sent by the 3^rd opposite party stating that the matter has been reported to 1^st opposite party. It is further submitted by the complainant that after receiving notice from this Forum, opposite parties approached the complainant and replaced the said T.V with new one and the same also showed similar problems as that of old T.V. On 09.03.2002 complainant sent a letter dated 09.03.2002 to the opposite parties to take back the replaced T.V and to refund the price. It is submitted by the opposite parties that during the pendency of the complaint before this Forum, opposite parties replaced the T.V set by new one to the complainant and thereafter complainant issued a letter to the opposite party stating that complete/full satisfaction to the T.V set replaced by the opposite parties. Further opposite parties say that complainant also assured and undertook that he would withdraw the complaint, but the complainant did not withdraw the same and has cheated the opposite parties. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that after replacement of the old T.V with new one complainant had no cause of action against the opposite parties. Further opposite parties say that after getting information that the new T.V replaced by the opposite parties is also having certain defects, the technicians of the opposite parties approached the complainant to ascertain the defects if any as raised by the complainant, but complainant did not allow opposite parties to ascertain the defects. An expert commission was deputed to ascertain the defects of the T.V in dispute. Ext. C1 is the commission report. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed objection to commission report. As per Ext. C1, the stereo system of the television is not working. Commissioner has reported that the entire stereo system has to be replaced. It is reported by the commissioner that the speaker of the left side of the television is not properly working, that the maximum power of sound claimed by the manufacturer as per the warranty card is 200 WPMPO, but the same could not be achieved at the level of the volume and that the left side speaker has to be replaced. Further commissioner has reported that the main problem of the T.V is with the picture tube. The picture tube of the T.V is faulty. It is pointed out by the commissioner that the picture quality is very poor, when the T.V is tuned with the cable connection(Asianet) and the direct connection from the antena and also when the V.C.P is played. This would indicate that the main problem of the T.V is with the picture tube. It is further reported that the major and important parts of the T.V are suffering from manufacturing defects. Commissioner has further reported that the replacement of the picture tube, the speakers and the stereo systems of the T.V is warranted and as they are major and vital parts. Commissioner has not been cross examined by the opposite parties, though opposite parties had filed objection to C.R. Filing of mere objections to C.R alone would not do anything unless the commission report is shaken in evidence by summoning and examining the expert by the opposite party. Opposite parties have not done anything to cast any doubt over the veracity and authenticity of the expert commission report. Commission report remains uncontroverted. As such we are inclined to accept the commission report. It is pertinent to note that the T.V set developed trouble within the period of warranty and the same was replaced with new one after one year from the date of purchase(24.11.2000) and the replaced T.V itself developed the same problem as had received prior to the replacement and the replaced T.V was seen inspected by the commissioner on 18.12.2003 and on inspection by the expert, the major parts(component) of the replaced T.V also suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. Opposite parties did not furnish any material to prove otherwise. Hence we find the T.V set is having manufacturing defect. No purpose will be served if opposite parties are directed further to replace the T.V with new one after a long lapse of 8 years. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act have so much wide ramifications against a person who provides service against consideration. If he commits any fault or shortcoming or deficiency is bound to compensate the consumers as to the loss or injury suffered by him. Here is a case where the supplied T.V set developed trouble from the very inception of its purchase which was replaced with new one within a period of one year, which also showed similar problem, on inspection by the expert commission it was found that the said replaced T.V itself suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. A consumer who purchased the said T.V on payment of Rs. 23,250/- could not achieve its purpose during the last 8 years. Hence no purpose will be served by directing the opposite parties to replace the T.V set with new one after a lapse of 8 years. Taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case, we think justice will be well met if opposite parties are directed to refund the purchase price of the T.V set with compensation to the complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 3 shall jointly and severally refund the purchase price of Rs. 23,250/- to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 3 shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant. The said amounts shall carry interest @ 12% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be 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 day of 15^th April 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 525/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sankara Narayanan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of Bill No. 4258 dated 24.11.2000 for Rs. 23,250/-.

P2 - Copy of 5 year warranty card dated 24.11.2000.

P3 - Copy of letter dated 18.07.2001 sent to the 1^st and 2^nd

opposite parties.

P4 - Copy of letter dated 06.08.2001 sent to the 1^st and 2^nd

opposite parties.

P5 - Copy of warranty card.

P6 - Copy of lawyer notice dated 07.11.2001.

P7 - Copy of reply letter dated 21.11.2001 sent by the 3^rd

opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT

C1 - Commission Report

PRESIDENT