COMPLAINT FILED: 28.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 26th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1437/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Rajendra Prasad Kar,<br /> Apt # 206, L.S. Tranquil,<br /> S.R.Tranquil, 1st Cross,<br /> Murugeshpalya,<br /> Bangalore – 560 017.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Mr.Murugan.<br /> PHILIPS Electronics India Ltd.,<br /> 402A, Dickenson Road,<br /> Building – The ESTATE,<br /> North Side,<br /> Bangalore – 560027.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to provide TV model 32PFL7762 with one year warranty or refund the cost of the TV Rs.25,623/- with interest and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased 23 inches Philips LCD TV from US on 31st January 2007. It was NTSC/PAL compatible. When he returned back to India in April 2007 the said TV didn’t work. Immediately he contacted the OP and explained its difficulties. OP concluded that this PAL TV is not for India. Then complainant sought for replacement of the said T.V with the TV which works in India. Though OP promised to replace the same but latter on claimed the total cost of the said TV to the tune of Rs.31,593/-. Complainant was agreeable to return the earlier TV of worth Rs.25,623/- and ready to pay remaining amount of Rs.5,970/- but OP didn’t agree for the same. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to compensate him either by replacing the TV or by returning the cost of the TV went in vain. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one Philips LCD TV belonging to OP Company at US on January 31st 2007. It had a combination of NTSC/PAL. When he returned to India in April 2007 to his utter shock and surprise the said TV didn’t work in India. He immediately contacted the OP Philips Company. OP concluded that his PAL model is not workable in India thus complainant sought for exchange or replacement of the said TV. He made repeated requests and demands and sent SMS to OP. Copies of the said SMS are produced. There was no proper response.<br /> <br /> 5. On insistence OP came forward to provide him a TV model 32PFL7762 for Rs.31,593/-. Complainant requested the OP to take back the earlier PAL TV and give deduction of the said cost of Rs.25,623/- and collect only Rs.5,970/-. OP didn’t heed to the said demand. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course it is said that buy beware. While purchasing the TV in US complainant would have got ascertained that if he takes the said TV to India whether that PAL compatible combination will be working in India. It appears he has not enquired in that regard nor any confirmation is made by the Philips Company that PAL combination TV is workable in India. So there is some sort of negligence on the part of the complainant himself.<br /> <br /> 6. As stated by the complainant OP came forward to give him a TV model 32PFL7762 the total cost of which is Rs.49,990/-. With all that OP came forward to give it to him for Rs.31,593/-. Complainant is not agreeable for the same. When the TV purchased by him at US having combination of NTSC/PAL is not workable in India he insisted the OP to take back the said T.V and give the deduction of the cost of the T.V Rs.25,623/-. That demand of the complainant does not appear to be reasonable and acceptable because no fault as such lies with OP.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course OP would have taken steps to collect the said TV from the complainant and send it to their Philips Company who manufactured it. OP would have assisted the complainant like ‘consumer’ in getting the relief, but no such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though he invested his hard earned money of Rs.25,623/- in purchase of the said TV in January 2007 at US he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under the circumstances Philips Company having retained the said huge amount and failed to sell the TV which complainant intended to take India also amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. The other reliefs of the complainant rather can’t be considered. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />