PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of September 2012
Filed on : 18-04-2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 242/2012
Between
Dr. Scaria C. Aikara, : Complainant
115, Al-Fia Nagar, (party-in-person)
Cusat road & P.O.,
Ernakulam-682 022.
And
1. The Manager, : Opposite parties
Nest Retail shop, Vennala,
Cochin By-pass, Vennala P.O., (1st & 3rd OP absent)
682 028.
2. Manager, Customer Service Dept,
Videocon Appliances Ltd., ( service of notice of
15th Km Stone, Chittagaon, 2nd o.p. not completed)
Tal-Paithan, Aurangabad-431 105.
3. Manager, Hometech Engineers,
32/2977/A3, Nr Catholic Syrian Bank,
Anjumury, Ponnurunny, Vyttila,
Kochi-682 016.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows: The complainant purchased an LCD T.V. from the 1st opposite party on 11-09-2008 at a price of Rs. 24,990/- . One year warranty has been provided by the manufacturer. After the expiry of the warranty period the TV will work for 5 to 10 minutes and the images would fail. Though the service centre attempted to rectify the defects they could not rectify the same. Thereafter another team replaced spare parts costing Rs. 3,500/-. But the complaint persisted Subsequently they demanded Rs. 22,000/- for repairs. At that juncture they refunded the service charges to the complainant and collected Rs. 800/- for having done anything to correct the T.V. So the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the T.V. or to reimburse at least 75% of the price and also to grant a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-.
2. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 1st and 3rd opposite parties opted to remain absent during the proceedings. The notice of the 2nd opposite party was returned unserved and the service of notice could not be completed. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the
T.V. set or to get refund of 75% of the price of the T.V. set?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?
4. Point No. i. Ext. A5 goes to show that on 11/09/2008 the complainant purchased an LCD TV set from the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 24,990/-. One year warranty has been provided by the manufacturer of the gadget evidenced by Exbt. A4. Ext. A1 series would show that on several occasions the complainant contacted the customer care of the manufacturer highlighting his grievances that is either to rectify the defects or to replace the same with a new one. Though the manufacturer requested the complainant to grant time to amicably redress the complaint nothing happened thereafter, which prompted the complainant to knock at the doors of this Forum. During evidence the complainant submitted that he is ready to pay 50% of the price of the TV set to the 1st and 3rd opposite parties provided they replace the defective LCD TV with a new piece. However the opposite parties are absent answerably. Without demur the opposite parties have not controverted the claim acquiescence ipso facto speaks. Things having been met squarely with harm to none it is observable that litigation necessarily is to be avoided where it is not necessary.
5. In the result, opposite parties 1 and 3 shall jointly and severally replace the LCD T.V. in question with a new one of the same price or with a different one of the choice of the complainant wherein he would have to pay the cost extra if called for. The complainant is to pay as admitted by him to pay 50% of the price of the gadget as per Ext. A5 simultaneously. Complainant shall return the defective T.V. to the opposite parties, to be collected by the opposite parties at their own cost.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of September 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 28-11-2011
A2 : Copy of cash/credit bill
dt. 28/02/2011
A3 : Deliver cum collection note
dt. 28-02-2011
A4 : List of videocon service
Centre
A5 : Customer copy
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
