Date of Filing       : 07-02-2013

Date of Disposal  : 30-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE

PRESENT: Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, B.A.,B.L., President

                  Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member

This the 30^th day of July, 2015

C.C.No.16/2013

BETWEEN

Vaka Anji Reddy,

Aged 53 years,

R/o. Guravareddypalem village,

Santhanuthalapadu Mandal,

Prakasam District, A.P.

                                                                                                                                                … Complainant.

Vs.

1. M/s. Best Products,

    Sri Surya Marketing Agencies,

    Shop No.37, 38, 1^st lane

    Sri Bapuji Market complex,

    Ongole.

2. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.,

    Rep.by its Managing Director,

    Aurangabad-431 105.                                                                                                    …Opposite Parties.

This complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 coming on 24-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Narendra Babu, advocate for complainant and the 1^st opposite party called absent and the 2^nd opposite party is the inperson and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY Sri K. UMA MAHESWARA RAO, MEMBER)

1.         The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

            The complainant purchased Videocon TV bearing No.21 SBV SIIM 30 – colour T.V. from the 1^st opposite party on 04.05.2011 for an amount of Rs.7,200/- for which the opposite party gave one year warranty.  But, the said T.V. works only for a period of 10 months and there after the T.V. failed to function.  Immediately, the complainant informs the same to the 1^st opposite party for which to send the T.V. to their service point for proper repair.  After the repair the said T.V. works only two days and got repair.  Then, the complainant notice the same to the 1^st opposite party, for which the opposite party informed the complainant to furnish the board of the T.V. for repair and later he send the same for their service point, Vijayawada for proper repair.  Inspite of the board repair the T.V. fail to functioned.  Then, the complainant requests the 1^st opposite party several times to replace the same with new T.V. for which they did not respond.  On 05.012.2012 the complainant issued a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party claiming to replace the new T.V. but the opposite party receive the same and fails to replace the same which comes under the purview of deficiency of service.  So, the complainant prays the forum to allow the complaint as prayed.  Hence, the complaint.

2.         The opposite party did not contest the matter after receiving the notice.

3.         Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite party committed a deficiency of service?”

4.         The complainant filed his chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.

5.         POINT:- The complainant counsel states that the opposite parties are liable to the replace the new videocon colour T.V. instead of old T.V.  In that connection the complainant did not file any proof for replacement of new T.V.  As per Ex.A1 invoice the T.V. purchased on 04.05.2011 and Ex.A2 the period of warranty expires on 03.05.2012.  But the complainant filed the case on 24.01.2013.  So, the same may prove that the complainant made correspondence with the opposite party after the lapse of warranty period.  In this case if the complainant really handed over the T.V. board to the 1^st opposite party within warranty period, he might have obtained the proper acknowledgement from the 1^st opposite party, but he did not do so.  So, we can presume that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party only after lapse of warranty period for repair of the said T.V.  In this case the complainant fail to prove the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. 

In view of the facts and evidence on record, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  Hence, we answered this point against the complainant.

6.         In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30^th day of July, 2015.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

P.w.1:                      19.09.2014                          Vaka Anji Reddy, R/o. Guravareddypalem village,

                                                                                Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1                     04-05-2011                           Tax Invoice for T.V.  for Rs.7,200/-

Ex.A2                                                                     Warranty card issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3                     05-12-2012                           Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.A4                                                                     Postal Receipt.

Ex.A5                                                                     Acknowledgement.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTY

-NIL-

                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1)             Complainant.

2)             1^st opposite party.

3)             2^nd opposite party.

Date when free copy was issued: