DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th  day of July  2016 

Present  : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

             : Smt.Suma.K.P, Member

             : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member       Date of Filing : 25/08/2014

      CC/117/2014

Mahadevan                                                            :        Complainant   

S/o.Madhavan,

Vettathoorveedu,

Bheemanadu Post,

Alanallur via,

Mannarkkad – 678 601

Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

  Vs   

1.Manager,

   Kochukudiyil Agencies,

   Opp.Bus Stand,

  Mannarkkad, Palakkad                                         

(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)

2.Tekcare India Pvt Ltd,

   Azad Building,

   Cherumanassery Building,

   Kallai Post, Calicut – 673 003                                 :         Opposite parties  

                                                      O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

On 13-4-2013 complainant had purchased a brand new Sansui 32” LCD Television from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.17,000/-. 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said Television. At the time of purchase, the 1^st opposite party had issued a warranty card for and on behalf 2^nd opposite party. Warranty was for a period of one year. Thereafter the TV was damaged and began to malfunction. Then the complainant informed the matter to  the 1^st opposite party. Complainant submitted that even after the repeated complaints and service of the TV , the TV did not function properly. In spite of the repeated requests, opposite parties did not replace the TV or repair it properly.  Hence the complaint. Complainant submitted that the act of opposite parties caused much losses and damages to the complainant. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

          Complaint was admitted and notice was issued. After receiving the notice, 1st opposite party filed vakkalath and version stating that complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary party. As per the request of the complainant, opposite party furnished the address of the supplemental 2^nd opposite party and the Forum sent notice to this supplemental opposite party. But the same was returned as “not known”. Then 1^st opposite party furnished the correct  address of supplemental opposite party  and Forum sent notice  in correct address of 2^nd opposite party Tekcare India Pvt Ltd, but 2^nd opposite party did not appear before the Forum. Hence 2^nd opposite party  set as exparte.

1^st opposite party admits the sale of Sansui 32” LCD TV. They also admit that complainant had complained about the television to this opposite party and consequently this opposite party had booked the complaint with the 2^nd opposite party, manufacturer of the product, on 9-4-2014 in the name of Jayadevan as per call No.0904140081. 2^nd opposite party manufacturer has attended the complaint and cleared the same. This Opposite party further contended that complainant had again complained on 14-7-2014 as per call No.1407140278. The said complaint was also registered with the 2^nd opposite party manufacturer through the toll free number. This complaint was also attended by the 2^nd opposite party  and had sought charges as the complaint was beyond the warranty date.

 1^st opposite party is only a dealer of televisions manufactured by Sansui. 1^st opposite party has not given any warranty and the same is given by the manufacturer. It is also contended that manufacturing defect of the television set as alleged by the complainant has not been examined or certified by any qualified person in this regard. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective chief affidavit. Ext A1 was marked from the side of the complainant. TV was marked as MO1. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and 1^st opposite party was cross examined as DW1.   

The following issues are taken into consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief?

Issues 1 and 2

We have perused the documents filed by the complainant. Ext.A1 evident for the purchase of television for Rs.17,000/- from the 1st opposite party. From Ext.A1  it is also revealed that the purchased Television was of Sansui.  1^st opposite party admits the sale of Sansui Television and warranty of one year. Television was purchased on 13-4-2013. Admittedly 1^st  complaint  in television   was occurred on 9-4-2014 i.e, within the period of warranty.  As per the version of 1^st opposite party it is revealed that second complaint was occurred on 14-7-2014 i.e, within three months from the 1^st complaint. Within the period of one year the newly purchased television had complaints. Just after 3 months also the complaint was again occurred. It shows that the television had some manufacturing defects.  Even though the manufacturing defect was not proved by any expert evidence, the defects were occurred within a short span of its purchase. 1^st opposite party admits that  complaint of television happened within the period of warranty. Admitted facts need not be proved.        Moreover 2^nd opposite party already set as exparte. Hence both opposite parties have the liability to provide better after-sale service to its customers. 1^st opposite party stated that they had booked complaint with the manufacturer. In order to prove these facts they have not produced anything before the Forum. Moreover 1^st opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove that the defects were cured by 2^nd opposite party.  Hence opposite parties cannot evade from the liability by merely saying that the warranty period is over. They have the responsibility to provide better service to the customers. In these circumstances we are of the view that by not providing after-sale service to its customers, opposite parties committed deficiency in service.

 Hence we allowed the complaint. We direct opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  towards compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only)  to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the  30^th  day of  July  2016.       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-                                                       

                                                                                                             Shiny.P.R                                                                               

                                        President

                          S/-             Sd/-                                                       

                                       Suma.K.P

                                         Member

                             S             Sd/-                                                       

                        V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                        Member

Exhibits marked  on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –  Invoice No.114 dated 13/4/13 issued by Kochukudiyil Agencies to the

              complainant

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Service Station Copy issued by the opposite party

Exhibits marked  on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

DW1 – Shinto Alex

MO1 – Television set

Cost

Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings