By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get compensation for the delay in repairing the TV set.
2. Brief of the complaint:- Tempted by the advertisement through medias regarding quality of the product and the assurance given by Opposite Party No.1 as to quality and proper free home service the complainant purchased Videocon LED TV 1VC241702 from opposite party No.1 on 24.07.2015 as per invoice No.2569 on payment of its price Rs.11,800/-. The said television was manufactured by opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase the opposite parties had given three years warranty for the said product. While so in the month of April 2016 an "eye spot" was noticed in the said television and immediately the said complaint was informed to opposite party No.1 through its phone No.04936222828. Initially opposite party No.1 informed that they will inform the technician in Wayanad District and within three days the technician shall come and repair the television. By believing the words of opposite party No.1 the complainant eagerly waiting for one week but no technician came to repair as promised by opposite party No.1. There after when again contacted the complainant through phone and directly they were saying lame excuses and till today utterly failed to rectify the above said manufacturing defect. As result of the same huge mental agony and great inconveniences were caused to the complainant. According to complainant, the acts of opposite parties No.1 and 2 are deficiency of service hence they are liable to pay compensation towards the loss and damages caused to the complainant. Hence filed this complaint.
3. On receipt of notice opposite party No.1 entered and version filed. Opposite party No.2's notice served on 30.08.2016 but they have not present before the Forum till 31.10.2016, hence their name called absent and set ex-parte on that day.
4. In the version, opposite party No.1 stated that this opposite party does not understand the defect mentioned by the complainant in the complaint as "eye spot". This opposite party sent technician to the complainant's house to rectify the defects any to the T.V. purchased by the complainant and technician found that there is only small issue with respect to the same and rectified the problem and there was no major complaints for the said T.V. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. If there is any manufacturing defects for the T.V. purchased by the complainant this opposite party is not liable for the same. This opposite party could not found any manufacturing defects for the same. The complainant is not liable to get Rs.50,000/- towards damages Rs.75,000/- towards compensation or for the litigation expense from this opposite party. More over the complainant is not entitled to get the price of the T.V. Rs.11,800/- from this opposite party since he purchased the same one year back. The complaint is not filed within the warranty period . There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of this opposite party.
5. Complainant adduced evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 Bill is marked. Opposite party No.1 not adduced any oral evidence.
6. Heard both parties.
7. On considering the complaint and evidences the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
8. Point No.1:- Complainant's counsel argued that during the pendency of this case opposite party No.2 repaired the TV set. The reason for the alleged defect was manufacturing defect. This complainant several times taken the TV set to the shop of opposite party No.1 to get it repaired but opposite party No.2 delayed the service without reason. After rectification of the defect this complainant proceeded with the matter in order to get compensation for the expenses incurred by way of transportation, and mental agony and great inconveniences. Through Ext.A1 document complainant proved that he is the consumer of opposite parties. Admittedly on 24.07.2015 complainant purchased the TV from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2. But in the month of April 2016 during the warranty period this set become defective. Complainant reported this to opposite party No.1 dealer but even after repeated requests the technician of opposite party No.2 have not attended the complaint and this complainant approached this Forum to get relief of this grievances.
9. On going through the evidences and records we are of the view that several times this complainant contacted the opposite parties over telephone and directly but they miserably failed to rectify the defect within a reasonable time. This resulted huge mental agony and great inconveniences. Opposite party No.1, dealer reported the matter immediately to opposite party No.2 on receipt of the complaint. Hence we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of them. But opposite party No.2 the manufacturing company failed to give proper service within a reasonable time. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of them and complainant is entitled to get compensation. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
10. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.2, complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation from opposite party No.2. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred) as compensation for the delay in service. They are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. This Order must be complied by opposite party No.2 within one month, otherwise opposite party No.2 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 1st day of December 2016.
Date of Filing: 19.07.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. M. K. Abdul Salam. Advocate.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Invoice. Dt:24.07.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
