Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/13/858

SUNNY DEVASSY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, M/s. LG ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

TOM JOSEPH

28 Mar 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/858
 
1. SUNNY DEVASSY
KANJIRAKATTUTHADATHIL HOUSE, NADUKANI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MANAGER, M/s. LG ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, FORTUNE ARCADE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24
2. M/s. KONATHAPPALLY ENTERPRISES
AM ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 13/12/2013

Date of Order : 28/03/2014

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

 

C.C. No. 858/2013

Between

     

    Sunny Devassy,

    ::

    Complainant

    Kanjirakkattuthadathil House,

    Nadukani. P.O.,

    Kothamangalam – 686 691.

     

    (By Adv. Tom Joseph,

    Court Road,

    Muvattupuzha – 686 661.)

    And

     

    1. M/s. L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

    ::

    Opposite Parties

    Branch Office, Fortune Arcade,

    Palarivattom, Kochi – 24.

    2. M/s. Konathappally Enterprises,

    AM Road,

    Kothamangalam – 686 691.

     

    (Op.pty 1 by Adv. Biju Hariharan, M/s. KNB Nair Associates,

    2nd Floor, Morning Star Buildings, Kacheripady, Cochin – 682 018.)(Op.pty Party-in-person)

    O R D E R

    A. Rajesh, President.

     

    1. Parties represented. Heard the counsel. The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party agreed to rectify the defect of the disputed TV free of cost. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant could not use the TV, since the same is suffering from manufacturing defect. Considering the version of the 1st opposite party, we direct the 1st opposite party to rectify the defects of the TV in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant also submitted that the TV became defunct in July 2013. Eventhough, the counsel for the 1st opposite party vehemently objected to the extension of warranty, we think that the complainant is entitled to get the warranty extended for a further period of 9 months from the date of delivery of the repaired TV.

     

    2. The 1st opposite party is directed to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the 1st opposite party shall refund the price of the TV to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from today, in that case the complainant shall return the defective TV to the 1st opposite party. Accordingly, the proceedings in this complaint stands closed.

     

    Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of March 2014.

    Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

    Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

     

     

    Senior Superintendent.

     

     
     
    [HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH]
    PRESIDENT
     
    [HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE]
    MEMBER
     
    [HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI]
    MEMBER

    Consumer Court Lawyer

    Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

    Bhanu Pratap

    Featured Recomended
    Highly recommended!
    5.0 (615)

    Bhanu Pratap

    Featured Recomended
    Highly recommended!

    Experties

    Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

    Phone Number

    7982270319

    Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.