D.o.F:19/6/08 D.o.O:15/11/2008 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.93/2008 Dated this, the 15th day of November 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER C.K.Ahamed, S/o late Moideenkunhi, Sherif Manzil, Po.Paravanadukkam, ; Complainant Kasaragod. Mohandas, BakuraAudioVision, : Opposite party
M.G.Road, Anabadilu,Kasaragod ORDER SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a BPL colour Television from the opposite party by paying a sum of rs.29,000/- on 13/9/2003. The complainant purchased the same by availing a loan from Chemnad Service Co-op.Bank. After 6 months of purchase, the picture tube of the television became defective and the set is entrusted with the opposite party for repair. The opposite party had taken 6 months time for its repair. After 3 months the same defect developed and again repaired. Again, after 3 months the same defect repeated and 14/8/2006 the complainant reported the same to opposite party and they sent one Srejit and he told that picture tube was not available and on arrival of the picture tube complaint will be informed and for a long time the opposite party kept quite and Sreejit has took away the warranty book with him. Complainant used to visit the opposite party on many occasions and opposite party requested the complainant to contact with the Ernakulam and Bangalore office. Thinking that his grievances will be redressed . Complainant wrote letter to the above mentioned offices but no reply was received by the complainant and on further enquiry , opposite party told the complainant to take the TV to the BPL service station. At the first instance no receipt was given from the service shop center and after repeated demands receipt was given and even now the opposite party promising the repair work but not carrying out the repair work nor giving a definite reply. From 23/2/2007 onwards the TV set is in the workshop and within three years of its purchase , the complainant used the set only for one year. During the world cup the opposite party supplied a spare television set to the complainant and after the world cup the same was returned. The complainant is alleging gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is for necessary relief. 2. Here , the opposite party served notice, appeared and filed his written version through counsel and he had taken the following contentions. According to the opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer. He is admitting the purchase of TV by the complainant from him on 13/9/2005 and he issued a guarantee card for one year. He denied the other averments that after six months of purchase of TV set it became defective and repaired and the same defect kept again and again the opposite party repaired the set etc. He also denied that the opposite party had sent one Sreejit for repair the TV set and the TV set was taken to the service center, at the instance of opposite party and the TV set is now with the service center etc. The opposite party admits that he is a dealer of BPL TV. The opposite party taken a contention that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party since the manufacturer is not made as parties to the proceedings. According to him, he has no connection with the service center. He also denies all the other allegations made against him by the complainant. 3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1, the opposite party, he was cross examined for the complainant. 4. After considering all the facts the issues raised for consideration is 1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 3. If so, what is the order as to costs and compensation 5 The point is to be considered in this case is whether the complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party. According to the opposite party, he is only a dealer and the service center is under the direct control of BPL company. If the goods sold by the dealer is defective he is also liable for the hardship caused to the purchaser and if any liability imposed on him, the same can be realized from the manufacturer. Hence, the complaint is not bad for nonjoinder of necessary party and the first issue is answered accordingly. Secondly, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Here the purchase of TV set is admitted by both the parties and the complainant is entitled to get a warranty for a period of 3 years. The date of purchase of TV set was on 13/9/2003. According to the complainant, the TV set became defective within six months of its purchase and entrusted with the opposite party for repair. After repair, the same defect crept again and again, and he used the TV set only one year within three years of its purchase. The opposite party deposed that he is not repairing the TV set. According to him, the BPL company is having a service center at Kasaragod and the repairs are being done from the service center and he is only a dealer. The complainant produced Ext.A1,workshop work order issued by Sanyo BPL Authorised Customer Care Center, Kasaragod dt.28/3/07. It shows that the BPL company is having service center at Kasaragod. If a company is having service center the dealer of that company will not repair the product. Hence,the contention of the opposite party in this aspect will sustain. Here, the specific case of the complainant is that within six months of purchase of the TV set became defective, and the same defect is repeated and repaired from the opposite party. But there is no evidence to show that the TV set becomes defective within 6 months of its purchase and the defects are repeated. Except Ext.A1, there is no other piece of evidence to show that the set became defective. Ext.A1 is dt.28/3/2007, ie, after the period of warranty. 5. The crux of the matter is that there was not an iota of evidence to prove defects in the TV set with the period of warranty ie, 3 years. Therefore, in the absence of reliable piece of evidence, we are inclined to hold that the complaint has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, complaint dismissed and no order as to costs. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENTExts: A1-28/3/07-Workshop work order A2-2/4/08- Copy of letter A3&A4-Courier receipts A5-postal receipt A6-Certificate of warranty DW1-Mohandas.K- Opposite party MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
