By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of Television and mental agony to the Complainant.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief as follows:- On 13.09.2005, the Complainant purchased a Onida Company 29 inch Television named 'Oxygen' from the Opposite Party No.1 for a total sale price of Rs.17,500/-. On the very next day, the television not functioning properly. The Opposite Party No.2 repaired the television after some days. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 serviced the television since there is warranty. The television again started complaint regularly and the Opposite Party No.2 used to cure the complaint for more than one month. So the complainant, before the expiry of warranty date paid Rs.2,400/- to the Opposite Party No.2 to extent the warranty and got it endorsed in the extended warranty card ie Ext.A2. The television board was complaint and the Opposite Party No.2 took the board for repair. But the Opposite Party No.2 neither repaired it nor turned up. Hence the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of the complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Parties. Both Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum. But only Opposite Party No.1 filed version, the Opposite Party No.2 was set exparty on 14.12.2012. The Opposite Party No.1 denied the averment in the complaint that the Complainant approached the Opposite party No.1 with the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 states that he did not know whether the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 for repair or not. Further the Opposite Party No.1 states that he had given all the connected papers of television at the time of sale. More over the manufacturing company is not impleaded as Opposite Party. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 is marked. The Opposite Party No.1 did not adduce oral evidence.
4. On going through the complaint, proof affidavit and documents of Complainant and the version of Opposite Party No.1 this Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. What order as to cost and compensation?
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant produced the original bill to prove the purchase and it is marked as Ext.A1. The Opposite Party No.1 who admits the purchase and Ext.A1 document. Ext.A2 is the extended warranty contract given by the Opposite Party No.2. Ext.A3 is the original warranty card issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.1. Ext.A2 proves that the Complainant paid Rs.2,400/- for extending warranty of the television from 28.03.2009 to 28.03.2013. Even if the television is purchased by the Complainant on 13.09.2005, there is no limitation in filing the complaint since warranty period is extended till 28.03.2013. So Exts.A1 to A3 proves the right of the complainant to file this complaint and to redress his grievances. There is a clear averment in the complaint that the Opposite Party No.2 took the Board of the television for repair and later not turned up. There is no evidence to disprove it. No contrary evidence is produced by the Opposite Parties. In the cross examination of Complainant, the complainant clearly stated that there is no deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant further states that the Opposite Party No.2 extended the warranty of the television as per the direction of the manufacturing company. The Opposite Party No.2 is the best person to say that the complaint of the television is due to the manufacturing defect or not. But that is not done by the Opposite Party No.2 in this case. So even if the manufacturing company is not impleaded as a party, it will not affect the case of the Complainant. The complainant purchased the television in the year 2005. The Complaint is filed in the year 2012. The present value of the television may be much lessor than in 2005. The Forum calculate the present value of Television as Rs.10,000/-. The complaint is filed within the warranty period. The Forum found that there is clear latches on the part of Opposite party No.2 which attributes deficiency of service from their side. Point No.1 found accordingly.
6. Since point No.1 is found infavour of Complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation and Opposite Party No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the value of television and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings and Rs.1,000/- as compensation. The Opposite Party No.2 shall pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand) only in total to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order there after the complainant is entitled an interest at the rate of 12% from Opposite Party No.2 till payment. On complying the order the Opposite Party No.2 can take back the television.
Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January 2014.
Date of filing:22.09.2012.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. John. M.A Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Bill. dt:13.09.2005.
A2. Extended Warranty Contract.
A3. Instruction Manual.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
