George varghes filed a consumer case on 28 Mar 2019 against Manager Bismi Appliances in the Idukki Consumer Court. The case no is CC/211/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Jul 2019.
Kerala
Idukki
CC/211/2018
George varghes - Complainant(s)
Versus
Manager Bismi Appliances - Opp.Party(s)
28 Mar 2019
ORDER
DATE OF FILING : 27/11/18
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of March 2019
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMARPRESIDENT
SMT.ASAMOL P.MEMBER
CC NO. 211/2018
Between
Complainant : George Varghese,
Pichappillil House,
East Kaloor P.O., Thodupuzha.
(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,
BISMI APPLIENCE, Kalarickal Basar,
Thodupuzha P.O., Thodupuzha.
2 . The Manging Director,
PE Electronics Ltd.,
Tech Web Centre, New Link Road,
Oshiwara, Mumbai 400 102.
O R D E R
SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is that,
The complainant purchased 55' inch LED TV of Philips worth Rs.62,400/- on 18/09/2016 from the first opposite party. At the time, the first opposite party made to convince the complainant that the TV has high quality and long term use and also he gives 3 years warranty. But unfortunately, on July 2018 the TV showed some defect and the Picture was not clear in the screen. The complainant informed to the first opposite party about the defect of the T.V. But they registered the complaint to the second opposite party only on 09/08/2018. The complainant approached the first opposite party so many times. But they did not take any steps for curing the defect, later the complainant has purchased another TV. As per the warranty, the opposite parties are liable to replace the Television or refund the price of the product. But they did not take any steps till the date. So they had played fraud on the complainant and it is deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has every right to get compensation from opposite parties for the deficiency in service.
(Cont.....2)
-2-
Opposite parties did not appear before this Forum hence made exparte.
Heard,
The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
Complainant adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit. Ext.P1, Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of original bill, Ext.P2 is the copy of warranty card and Ext.P3 is the copy of Tax invoice bill.
The Point:- The complainant alleges that, the opposite parties sold 55' inch Philips TV with 3 years warranty to the complainant. Original bill and 3 years warranty card issued by the first opposite party at the time of purchasing to the complainant. Complainant produced the copy of the bill and copy of warranty card before this Forum. It is clear that the opposite parties sold the above said TV to the complainant with 3 years warranty. Notice served to the opposite parties. But they did not appear before this Forum. So they called absent, set exparte. Complainant was examined. Ext.P1, Ext.P2 and Ext.P3,copy of original bill, copy of warranty card and copy of tax invoice bill were marked.
Hence the petition allowed. The Forum directs the opposite parties to refund the amount Rs.62,400/- and also Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2019.
Sd/-
SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
(Cont.....3)
-3-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - George Varghese
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The copy of original bill
Ext.P2 - The copy of warranty card
Ext.P3 - The copy of Tax invoice bill.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.