SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Complainant Saseendra Kurup has filed complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The contentions of the complainant is that the opposite parties accepted the consideration of the Rs.1490/- from the complainant on 14.5.04 an issued receipt No.2416 for the risk period from 14.5.04 to 13.5.06 for his Onida Colour T.V. set. During the last week of October, 2005 the T.V. became defective due to the lightening. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and requested to remove the picture tube of the television since it was damaged due to the lightening. Both opposite parties denied the request with the statement that the scheme does not include picture tube. Hence this petition seeking relief. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The same were accepted by them and entered appearance before the Forum and filed version. In the version it is stated that complainant had taken extended warranty contract by paying an additional amount of Rs.1490/- which is for a period from 14.5.04 to 13.5.06. It is further stated that complainant had lodged a complaint in the 1st week of November, 2005 before the opposite parties service centre and the technician noticed that the picture tube was broken. The opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.4,225/- from the complainant after giving deduction of Rs.500/- and picture tube was replaced.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the parties this Forum raised the issue whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. On the side of the complainant three documents produced and same were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Complainant was examined as PW1. <br /> 5. On a perusal of the pleadings and documents given in evidence, and a detailed hearing, we are of the view that the opposite parties are bound to replacing picture tube of the television set since the extended warranty period is in force by remitting the sum of Rs.1490/-. The extended period of warranty covered all the accessories of the T.V. including picture tube. So the opposite parties are bound to repay the amount of Rs.4225/- collected by the opposite parties from the complainant in connection with the replacement of picture tube. Denial of repayment of the said amount come with the purview of deficiency of service. So the complaint is to be allowed.<br /> In the result, we direct the opposite parties to return the sum of Rs.4225/- (Rupees four thousand two hundred and twenty five only) to the complainant and a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). We further directed the opposite parties to pay the said amounts within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> Complaint allowed.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008.<br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN :<br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH :<br /> APPENDIX:- Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI :<br /> PW1 - N. Saseendra Kurup (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Temporary Cash Receipt<br /> Ext.A2 - Cash Memorandrum<br /> Ext.A3 - Copy of the Advocate’s Notice<br /> Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil .<br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Oppo.parties/S.F.<br /> <br /> Typed by:-pr/-<br /> <br /> Compared by:-<br />