IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 209/2011 (Filed on 18.10.2011)
Between:
M.T. James,
Saji Bhavanam,
Kurampala Village,
Kurampala Muri,
Pandalam P.O. … Complainant.
And:
1. Managing Partner,
M/s. Attinkara Electronics,
Pandalam.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan)
2. Aircon Multi Care,
XII 184/1, 184/2,
Kulathum Muriyil Buildings,
Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased 2 T.V. sets manufactured by Sansui Company from the first opposite party on 16.11.2009. Both T.V. sets became defective by September 2010. The matter was intimated to the first opposite party several time. At last, the technicians of the second opposite party came to the house of the complainant on 29.03.2011 as per the instructions of the first opposite party on the basis of the repeated requests of the complainant and they have taken away the T.V. sets for repairs along with the original bills. The said T.V. sets were purchased from the first opposite party by paying ` 17,800 each. The T.V. sets were not returned by second opposite party so far in spite of the complainant’s repeated requests. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and other inconveniences to the complainant. Opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the price of ` 35,600 from the first opposite party with 12% interest per annum along with compensation of ` 25,000 and cost of this proceedings from the opposite parties.
3. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: First opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased 2 T.V. sets from them on 16.11.2009. The complainant never intimated the complaints of the T.V. sets to the first opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The complainant intimated the complaints of the T.V. sets to the first opposite party only on 22.07.2011. Accordingly, the first opposite party intimated the matter to the second opposite party. The subsequent transaction between the complainant and the second opposite party is not aware of the first opposite party and the first opposite party has not acted as a mediator between the complainant and the second opposite party. The complainant never contacted the first opposite party after 22.07.2011, the date on which the complainant had made the complaint to the first opposite party regarding the complaints of the T.V. sets. The first opposite party is not responsible in respect of the repairs of the T.V. sets. The first opposite party is only the dealer of various products of various companies. The first opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service or they have not caused any loss to the complainant. The first opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The first opposite party also alleged that the warranty cards produced by the complainant are fabricated. None of the reliefs prayed against the first opposite party is not allowable. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The second opposite party is exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 series. First opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they have cross examined PW1. After closure of evidence, the complainant and the first opposite party were heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that 2 T.V. sets manufactured by Sansui Company purchased from the first opposite party on 16.11.2009 became defective during September, 2010. The matter was intimated to the first opposite party. But there was no response from the side of the first opposite party till 29.03.2011. Thereafter on 29.03.2011, technicians of second opposite party came to the house of the complainant as per the instructions of the first opposite party and taken the T.V. sets along with its original bill for repairs. But they have not returned the T.V. sets so far. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A3(a). Ext. A1 is the Customer Warranty Card of Sansui company dated 16.11.2009 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant in respect of the sale of one T.V. to the complainant. Ext. A2 is another Customer Warranty Card of Sansui Company dated 16.11.2009 in the name of the complainant issued by the first opposite party for the sale of another T.V. set. Exts. A3 and A3(a) are the 2 receipts dated 29.03.2011 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant for taking the T.V. sets for repairs.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the first opposite party is that the complainant intimated the complaints of the T.V. sets only on 22.07.2011 to them. Accordingly, they intimated the matter to the second opposite party. The remaining transaction with the complainant and the second opposite party is not aware of the first opposite party. The responsibility for repairs is with the second opposite party and the first opposite party is not liable to the complainant for the repairs as they are only the dealers of the products supplied by various companies. The responsibility for the repairs and services of the products sold by the first opposite party is with the authorized service centres of the concerned companies. In this transaction, the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant and they are not liable to the complainant for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint against the first opposite party.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the first opposite party, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they have cross examined the complainant.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased 2 T.V. sets from the first opposite party on 16.11.2009. As per Exts. A1 and A2, there is only one year warranty for the products purchased by the complainant. The complainant’s allegation is that the T.V. sets became defective during the warranty period and the T.V. sets were taken by the second opposite party for repairs on 29.03.2011 and they have not returned the same to the complainant so far. But on a perusal of Exts. A3 and A3(a) receipts, the defective T.V. sets were taken by the second opposite party on 29.03.2011, which is after the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that his T.V. sets became defective before the expiry of the warranty period. Further, the complainant also failed to adduce any evidence against the first opposite party for showing any deficiency of service from their part. The available evidence shows that the second opposite party has not returned the T.V. sets so far though they have taken the T.V. sets for repairs on 29.03.2011. The above said act of the second opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Since the complainant failed to adduce evidence to show that his T.V. sets became defective during warranty period, the complainant is not entitled to get the warranty benefits. However, the non-return of the T.V. sets by the second opposite party is a grave deficiency in service. They also did not turned up for contesting the case. Therefore, we find that this complaint can be allowed against the second opposite party.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the second opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the complainant’s T.V. sets and return the T.V. sets within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the T.V. sets along with compensation of ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount from the second opposite party.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : James. M.T.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Customer Warranty Card of Sansui Company dated
16.11.2009 issued by the first opposite party in the name
of the complainant.
A2 : Customer Warranty Card of Sansui Company dated
16.11.2009 issued to the complainant by the first opposite
party.
A3 and A3(a) : Receipts (2 in number) dated 29.03.2011 issued by
the second opposite party in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) M.T. James, Saji Bhavanam, Kurampala Village,
Kurampala Muri, Pandalam P.O. (2) Managing Partner, M/s. Attinkara Electronics,
Pandalam.
(3) Aircon Multi Care, XII 184/1, 184/2,
Kulathum Muriyil Buildings, Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
