CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 14/03/2012

CC / 49/2012

Prasad,

Cheruparambil (H), - Complainant

Moonekkar, Karimba

Palakkad- 678 597

(BY ADV.J.Kamesh)

Vs

1. M/s.Data Vision,

Authorized Philips Service Centre,

15/239(5), Lakshmi Gardens,

Mathakovil Street, Coimbatore Road,

Sulthanpet, Palakkad- 678 001

Represented by Manager

(BY ADV.K.T.Antony)

- Opposite parties

2. Philips Electronics India Ltd,,

DLF 9B, 9^th Floor,

DLF City Phase 3, Guragon

Represented by Manager

(BY ADV.G.Shaji)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

The case of the complainant in brief:

The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 24-7-2011 for repairing the DVD player Model No.LX3900 SA/09 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. After a preliminary check, the 1^st opposite party taken it for repair and assured to return back within a week after its due repair. But the 1^st opposite party neither repaired nor returned the DVD Player. The complainant's request for the repair estimate also not paid attention to by the 1^st opposite party. Complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party several times but the 1^st opposite party turned blind eyes towards the complainant. On 13.1.2012 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for taking back of the DVD player but the 1^st opposite party neither repaired nor returned the DVD Player to the complainant. The complainant came to understand that the DVD Player defunct due to its non usage and thus the whole DVD Player got damaged beyond repair. Complainant sent a lawyer notice on 17.1.2012 to both opposite parties stating the facts. But 1^st opposite party only sent a reply stating false contention.

Due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties the complainant suffered loss of enjoyment of the music and mental agony.

So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50/- per day from 25.7.2011 till the date for mental agony and loss of enjoyment and cost of the DVD Player along with the cost of the complainant.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the contentions of the complainant.

On 25.7.2011 the complainant brought a Philip Model LX 30900 SA/69 to the 1^st opposite party for repair. The complainant never approached the 1^st opposite party on 24.7.2011. On inspection of the serial number of the DVD Player it was found that the set was manufactured in the year 2005 and the 1^st opposite party offered service only on payment of necessary estimated cost because the set was sold about seven years back and guarantee and warranty period is over. The complainant accepted the demand of the 1^st opposite party . Accordingly the technician of the 1^st opposite party inspected the DVD Player and came to know that the MPEG PCB is faulty and the cost was estimated to 5500+tax+Service charge. The estimate was given to the complainant but the complainant neither responded positively to the above demand nor taken back the DVD from the 1^st opposite party. Without making advance payment of the estimate amount 1^st opposite party is not in a position to give service to the complainant. Opposite party never assured the complainant to repair the DVD Player within a week. The complainant never demanded back the DVD Player. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and not made any mental agony or loss to the complainant. Considering the consuming relationship 2^nd opposite party made an offer through e-mail message on 7.2.2012 to the complainant. “New Philip Home Theatre HT 53510/94 @4995/-. This very special offer valid only for 10 days from the date of e-mail.

The complainant has not made use of the excellent offer. The complainant has not approached the 1^st opposite party on 13.1.2012.

So the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Complainant and opposite party was cross examined as PW1 and DW1. Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 marked. Heard the parties.

Issues to be considered are:

I. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

II. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issues No.I & II

The complainant entrusted his DVD Player with the 1^st opposite party on 25.7.2011 for repair. By mistake in the complaint the date was written as 24.7.2011. Ext.A1 shows that the DVD player was entrusted with opposite party on 25.7.2011. But 'promise delivery data' in Ext.A1 was left blank. Complainant says that at the time of entrusting the DVD player the opposite party informed him that it will be delivered after one week. When he contacted the opposite party over phone they are not giving any specific reply regarding repairing of the DVD player. The complainant demanded the estimate amount but the opposite party did not provide the same. All these are not supported by document. At the time of cross examination DW1 stated that on 28.7.2012 the complainant approached the opposite party directly. At that time the problems of the DVD player and estimate amount was informed to the complainant. But it is not supported by any document. Opposite party admit that the DVD player was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party and it is 2005 model. The lawyer notice issued by complainant to the opposite parties doesn't carry the date. Anyhow the 1^st opposite party sent reply to lawyer notice on 15.2.2012(Ext.A3). On 7.2.2012 the opposite party sent a e-mail to the complainant offering a “New Philip Home Theatre HT 53510/94 @ 4995/-”. But complainant says that it is received only after the issuance of the lawyer notice.

On 13.1.2012 the complainant approached the opposite party for getting DVD player. At that time also the opposite party not returned the same. DVD Player is manufactured in 2005 and its warranty period was already over.

From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties is not informing the estimate amount to the complainant and made delay in repairing the DVD Player.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Complainant is at liberty to get back the DVD Player from the opposite party. Opposite party shall hand over the same on request.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th day of July, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Original bill dt.25.7.2011 of Philips Service Centre.

Ext.A2 – Copy of Lawyer notice sent to two opposite parties.

Ext.A2(a)- Receipts

Ext.A2(b)-Acknowledgements

Ext. A3 – Original Reply notice dt.15/02/2012.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - E-mail dt.07/02/2012.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1- Prasad.C.P

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1-T.P.Joy

Cost allowed

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.