DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR : MEMBER
SRI.VIJU.V.R. : MEMBER
CC.NO.340/2021 (Filed on : 08.11.2021)
ORDER DATED : 20/04/2022
COMPLAINANT
S.Harikumar,
S/o.K.Sankaran Nair,
TC.42/1146, PRA – 60,
Pathirappally Road, Poojappura.P.O
Thiruvananthapuram – 695012
(Party in person)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Manager,
Mayoori Furniture & Electronics,
Mayoori Junction, Manacaud.P.O
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 009
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR : PRESIDNET( I/C)
The complainant had purchased a television from opposite party on 20.08.2021 with one year warranty. The television was damaged within one year. Then the complainant informed the damage of television to opposite party and they asked to contact service centre. Then the complainant had contacted the service centre and send videos of television to them. Thereafter the service centre informed him that the display of television was broken and Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) was the charge to replace display. The complainant had not know to how the display of television was broken. One of the technicians in service centre demanded Rs.8, 500/- (Rupees eight thousand five hundred only and the others demanded Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to repair the television. But the price of television is only Rs.9990/- The television became damaged within the warranty period. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
After accepting the notice the opposite party not present before the Commission. Hence opposite party set exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 and P2 marked from the side of complainant.
Issues to be considered are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
- If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues
We perused relevant documents. As per Ext.P1 the complainant had purchased the television for an amount of Rs.9990/-. As per Ext.P2 shows 12 months warranty. According to the complainant the television was damaged within one month. The service centre demanded Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to repair the television. The amount of repair was above the rate of television. The opposite party had not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.
In the above discussions we find that the acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.9990/- as the cost of the television and pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the amount except cost carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. After complying the order the complainant shall hand over the television to the opposite party.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 20th day of April 2022.
Sd/-
PREETHA G NAIR: (PRESIDENT I/C)
Sd/-
VIJU.V.R : MEMBER
Be/
APPENDIX
CC.NO.340/2021
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - S.Harikumar
Exhibits for the complainant
Ext.P1 - Copy of invoice
Ext.P2 - Copy of warranty card
List of witness for the opposite party - NIL
Exhibits for the opposite party - NIL
Court Exhibits - NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.NO.340/2021
ORDER DATED : 20/04/2022
