CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present. Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. CC.No.129/08 Saturday, the day of 31st, October, 2009.
Petitioner. Jacob Mani Parakulangara Kanjiramattom.P.O. Kottayam. Vs. Opposite party. 1. The Manager Kuruvithadom Agencies, Puthumana Towers, Pala-686575. (Adv.Titto Thomas) 2. AKAI Consumer Electronics Onida Ltd.IB No.18, Pradap Nagar Aurengabad 431105 rep.by its Managing Director. (Adv.Kaiparambil Associates) O R D E R Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.
The crux of the complainants case is as follows. The complainant purchased a DVD-AKAI 1000 from the opposite party on 28/12/04 for a price Rs.3750/- vide receipt No.PA-971. The said DVD became defective just after three weeks of its purchase and it was entrusted to the opposite party in January 2005. It was repaired and returned to the complainant. But the said DVD again showed defects in March 2005, and it was repaired by the opposite party. It further became defective in June 2005 and it was again taken to the opposite party. The opposite -2- party kept the DVD for about one month and returned it to the complainant with the advise to get it repaired with some other machanic. Accordingly the DVD was repaired by another mechanic but then also it worked only for 3 months. In May 2007 when the DVD became defective, it was again taken to the opposite party and it remained in their custody for more than three months and returned unrepaired stating reason 'spare parts are not available. The complainant alleged that the opposite party supplied a DVD they got under special world cup offer. The complainant further alleged that there is no mention about the manufacturer, date of manufacture, price of the unit on the packet of the DVD and therefore it can be presumed that the opposite party might have got the said DVD as a gift with some other item like fridge or TV. The complainant submitted that ''getting after sale service'' is a right of the consumer. He further submitted that the DVD was with the repairing centre for more than 14 months after the date of purchase. But the opposite parties failed refused and neglected to redress his grievances. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying the following reliefs. (i) to repair the DVD with guarantee or replace it with a new one. (ii) Compensation of Rs.1565/-. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. The petition is barred by non-jointer of necessary parties. (ii) The complainant purchased the DVD under world special scheme in the year 2004. The warranty was for one year and the DVD was serviced without hesitation at the time of warranty.
-3- (iii) The defects occured due to the mis-handling of the DVD.(iv) The electronic instruments will change after a short duration when new items are introduced and its spare parts will become out of the market. The said matter was informed to the petitioner at the time of purchase itself. (v) At the time of purchase the functioning of the DVD was displayed correctly to the petitioner.
Hence the first opposite party prayed to dismiss the case with costs to the opposite party. The second opposite party also filed version with the following important points. (i) This complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. (ii) The alleged defects within one month and the alleged repeated defects in DVD Akai are false and made with malafide intentions.
(iii) The second opposite party is having service centre across India with sufficient stock of spare parts and trained mechanics. (iv) The warranty for the DVD Akai is only for 6 months and the DVD is out of warranty and therefore the complainant is liable to pay for the service charges. (v) There is no deficiency in service.
Hence the second opposite party prayed to dismiss with compensatory costs to them. -4- Points for consideration are: (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A3. Point No.1. The packet of the DVD was produced and marked as M.O.I. After perusal M.O.I was returned. On scanning M.O.I, it is understood that the address of the manufacturer, date of manufacturer, price of DVD etc. are not mentioned. A sticker with, wording ''Under Special World Cup Offer'' was affixed on the said packet. Seeing the above mentioned sticker, the petitioner alleged that the said DVD might be a unit the opposite party got from some manufacturer to give it as a gift with some other item like fridge or TV. Nothing is seen on record to disprove the abovesaid allegation levelled against the opposite parties. The invoice dated 28/12/2004 showing the price of DVD Akai-10000 is produced and marked as exhibit A1. But as there is no mentioning of 'MRP' on the packing box, it is impossible to see whether the price received by the opposite party is actual or not. Moreover as per exhibit A1, no offer is seen given to the complainant on the purchase of DVD as mentioned in the sticker affixed on the packet. The complainant submitted that the DVD had a warranty of only three months instead of the one year warranty offered by the opposite parties. As per the avernment of the first oppoite party the said DVD had one year warranty. Whereas the second opposite prty averred that the warranty of the Akai DVD is only six months. The first and second -5- opposite parties made contradictory averments regarding the warranty. No scrap of paper is placed as evidence to prove the real warranty given for an Akai DVD. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the opposite parties followed a trade practice which was quite deceptive and unfair. A copy of letter dated 26/9/07 sent by the first opposite party to the complainant is produced and mrked as exhibit A3. Through exhibit A3, the first opposite party informed the complainant that the spare parts for rectifying the DVD are not available and offered an exchange of DVD on payment of Rs.1500/-. But the second opposite prty averred that they are having service centre across India and having trained mechanics with sufficient stock of spare parts. The abovesaid statement of first opposite party regarding scarcity of spare parts forced the complainant to knock at the doors of the consumer. The complainant averred that the DVD started showing complaints within one month of its purchase and the complaints repeated many times after the first repair. He further averred that the DVD that became defective in May 2007 was entrusted to the first opposite party and it was neither repaired nor returned. The act of opposite parties in not repairing and returning the DVD is a clear case of deficiency in service. Taking into account the hardships and mental agony suffered by the complainant, we feel it reasonable to direct the second opposite party to repair the DVD free of cost. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed. The complaint is ordered as follows. -6- The second opposite party will repair the Akai DVD-10000 to the complainant's satisfaction free of cost. The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of copy of this order failing which the abovementioned sums will carry interest @ 9%p.a. till realisation.
Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents of the complainant. Exhibit A1 Copy of invoice dated 28/12/04 Exhibit A1(a) Copy of invoice dated 28/12/04 Exhibit A1(b) Copy of invoice dated 28/12/04 Exhibit A2 Copy of job card dated 1/6/07 Exhibit A3 Copy of letter dated 26/9/07. By Orders,
SeniorSuperintendent. Kgr/5 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
