IN  THE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  KOLLAM

            Dated this the   19^th  day of November 2018

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

        Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member

       CC.No.79/18

Udayakumar.V                                 :         Complainant

S/o Velayudhan

Kudutha Labour Line, Kalanjoor Village

Pathanamthitta

[By Adv.Suhas.M.Haneef]

V/s

1. Managing Director                            :         Opposite parties

         Castor Ideal

        Castor Impex

        Aluva,Ernakulam

2. Managing Director

          Next Electronic Centre, Near Town Masjid,

          Pathanapuram.

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , President

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

          The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of  Television and other Electronic Products under  the name  Castor.  The 2^nd opposite party is the sales agent of the product of the 1^st opposite party who has been conducting business at Pathanapuram in the name Alert Electronic Centre.  On 17.07.17 the complainant purchased one LED TV 80 cm bearing No.C7  LE3105 K, V-guard Stabilizer  etc. by paying Rs.16000/- including tax.  Out of which the LED TV  cost of LED TV alone is Rs.14500/-.  But the above TV worked only for 2½ months and thereafter if the switch is made on the LED TV started to  show grains and generate small  sound  and  thereafter  power  will  become  off.  The

2

complainant intimated that fact to the 2^nd  opposite party and on getting intimation the 2^nd opposite party deputed a technician who after necessary verification expressed that there is less chance of curing the defect of the said LED TV repaired as there is manufacturing defect.  He has also expressed that it cannot be repaired at all.  Thereafter the complainant again approached the  2^nd opposite party and demanded to replace a new LED TV in the place of a defective one.  But the 2^nd opposite party has not pay heed to his request.  Later the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party through toll free No.0484 2922600/2620012 and registered a complaint.  But the 1^st opposite party has not taken any steps to redress his grievance stated in the complaint.  The LED TV manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and purchased from 2^nd opposite party has been remaining idle without any use.  The complainant being a customer of the 2^nd opposite party is entitled to get a new LED TV after taking back the TV having manufacturing defect.  But they have not done so in spite of his intimation and lodging complaint.   Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get the defective LED TV replaced and also get compensation.  Hence the complainant.

          Though notice was served on opposite party 1&2, they have not entered appearance nor filed any written version.  The complainant filed proof affidavit by re-iterating the averments in the complaint  and got marked 2 documents as Ext.P1 and P2.  As there is no representation for the opposite party No.1&2  they were set exparte.  Heard the complainant’s counsel and perused the records.

          The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 & P2 documents would prima facie establish  the following facts.

The complainant on 17/07/17 has purchased one LED TV from the 2^nd  opposite party   and   V-guard  stabilizer, Cristal  Nano  by  paying  Rs.14,500/-  and

3

Rs.1500/- respectively and the 2^nd opposite party has issued Ext.P1 bill and Ext.P2 warranty card which would indicate that the LED  TV is having 3 years warranty from the date of purchase.  1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the  LED TV sold by the 2^nd opposite party who is the retail seller of the said LED TV and allied products manufactured by the 1^st opposite party that for about  2½ months said LED TV worked properly.  But thereafter the functioning of the said TV has been stopped and when the power supply is on the LED TV will generate a sound and grains and power will be off automatically.  It is also clear from the unchallenged averments in the affidavit that the complainant has made the complaint before the 2^nd opposite party from where he purchased it and on getting the complaint the 2^nd opposite party caused to send a technician and after inspection the said technician has informed the complaint that the TV is having manufacturing defect  and therefore it is not possible to get it repaired.  By knowing this fact the complainant intimated the same to the 1^st opposite party by registering a complaint in the toll free number provided by the  1^st opposite party.    But the  opposite  parties  have  neither attempted  to cure  the manufacturing defect nor replaced  the LED TV by a defect free one. 

In the circumstance it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties No.1&2 and the complainant is entitled to get the defective LED TV replaced by a brand new one of  the same price and specification and also entitled to get compensation for the mental agony sustained by the complainant for not working the LED TV purchased by him by  paying ready cash. 

In view of the materials discussed above the complaint is only to be allowed.  In the result the complaint stands allowed  in the following terms.

4

1.  Opposite party No.1&2 are directed to replace a brand new LED TV of the same specification and price stated in Ext.P1 bill within 30 days from today by receiving back the defective LED TV from  the complainant and if it is not possible and practicable the opposite parties shall pay the invoice price(RS.14,500/-) of the LED TV within 30 days.
2. The opposite party No.1&2 are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/- to the complainant for the mental agony sustained by him due to the defect in the new LED TV purchased by  him within 2½ months of its purchase.
3. The complainant is directed to return the LED TV to the 1^st opposite party at the Alert Electronic Centre, Pathanapuram within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the  copy  of  this  order  and  in  such  case  the 2^nd opposite party  shall caused to replace the defective TV by a brand new one as directed above within next 3 weeks.
4.  The opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

If the opposite parties fail to comply with direction No.1&2 the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.14500+10000  along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of complaint till realisation with costs Rs.2000/- from the opposite party No.1&2 and from their assets.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant  Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the  19^th   day of  November 2018.        

           E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                        M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                                                                                             5

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1                  :         Tax Invoice

Ext.P2                  :         Warranty card

Witness examined for the opposite party:-Nil

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                                    M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                                                                                    Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT