CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.
CC.No.292/08 Thursday, the day of 25th, February, 2010.
Petitioner. Ebi Abrham Valayil house Kothala.P.O. (Adv.Bobby John) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. Manager Reliance Communications Pvt. Ltd. Cirils Tower Kottayam-1. (Adv. P.P.Joseph) 2. Joshy Thomas Thomson Electronics & Electricals, Mattathil building Near Private Bus Stand Main Road, Pala. O R D E R Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows. On 23/9/2008 the complainant had purchased a Big T.V. From the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured and introduced by the Ist opposite party for an amount of Rs.1990/-. The 2nd opposite party had installed the Big T.V. And they collected Rs.200/- from the complainant as installation charges. The complainant had purchased the big TV on the assurances given by the opposite parties as he could seen 187 channels 10 radio channels and 32 cinema holes etc. upto 15/10/08 the complainant's big T.V. Had working. From 16/10/08 the big TV was not functioning. The complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties ie: complaint No.78118942, No.78623348, No.79042241 but they did not do anything to rectify the defects. The main attraction for -2- purchasing the Big TV was on the assurance that 3 months full program provided by the opposite party without charges. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. The notices were served with the opposite parties. But the 2nd opposite party was not at appeared either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this Forum. Hence 2nd opposite party set ex-pate. The Ist opposite party appeared and filed their version contending as follows. On 17/10/08 due to non availability of the programms the complainant contacted the customer care of the Ist opposite party and so called instruction to reset the programs, replace the set up box are not aware to the Ist opposite party as the same was never esclated to us or the customer came. The customer complaint mentioned with customer cares vide the number mentioned is closed as the same is cured with satisfaction of the complainant. On verification it found that the each complaint is in respect of various matters and no single complaint is in repeated nature. Whenever a new complaint is received opposite party's customer care will allot a unique docket/complaint number to the complaint. On receipt of the complaint on 11.11.08 opposite party's technical person from Ernakulam tried to attend the case with the help of the contact number of the complainant, but all efforts are got in vain the contact number is not in service on that time. Later opposite party's cured the defect by replacing the set up box during last week of November 2008 with the satisfaction of the complainant who hesitated to the acknowledge the job card as he wants to teach a lesson to the Ist opposite party, which is not yet been reported before the Forum as the complainant wants some advantages in form prosecuting the case. There was no deficiency in service on the npart of the opposite parties. Hence complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A3. The Ist opposite party filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as exhibits B1.Heard complainant. We have gone through the complaint, version, -3- documents of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties has not rectify the defects of the Big TV. According to him several complaints made the opposite parties has not do anything to rectify the defects in the Big TV which was purchased from the opposite parties. The case against the 2nd opposite party was unchallenged by them even after accepting the notice from this Forum. Hence the care against the 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte. The Ist opposite party has taken a contention that when the problem was reported by the complainant the same was rectified by the opposite party. According to them there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ist opposite party. From the document provided by the Ist opposite party marked as exhibit B1. From exhibit B1 it can be seen that the problem in the Big TV has solved. However there was no evidence adduced by the opposite party that they had cured the alleged defects in the Big TV. As far as the complainant is concern several times they had contacted the oppsite parties for curing the defects in the Big TV. But there was no action was taken by the opposite parties to cure the alleged defects in the Big TV. From the available documents and evidence it can be seen that there was some defects in the Big TV. So there was some inconceniences was caused to the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed, Both opposite parties jointly and severally liable to compensate the complaint. In the result the complainant is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.1990/- ie. Price of Big TV set and pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for inconceniences and pay Rs.750/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant. (2) On getting the payment the complainant shall return back the Big TV set to the opposite parties. (3) The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-4-
Sri.K.N.Radhkrishnan Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents produced by complainant. A1 is the operators manuel of Big TV. A2 is the set up guide of the Big TV. A3 is the Brochure of the Big TV.
Documents produced by Ist Opposite party. B1 is the copy of customer care report.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/5 copies.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
