By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2,674/- being the amount collected from the Complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and loss of reputation and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased “AOC LED LE 32 A 1330 from the 1^st Opposite party as per invoice No.5866 dated 03.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.19,000/-. The T.V was covered by a warranty for 3 years. On 07.06.2014, when the cable connection was removed from the T.V. The analog pin was broken on the same day, the Complainant registered a complaint with 1^st Opposite Party on 09.06.2014 the technician of the 2^nd Opposite Party attended the complaint and informed the Complainant that the analog port is broken and the same is to be replaced. The technician replaced the analog port and charged Rs.2,674/- from the Complainant. The action of Opposite party in charging the value of replaced parts during warranty period is deficiency of service. Aggrieved by them, the Complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and 1^st Opposite party did not appear in Forum and 1^st Opposite Party is set exparte on 25.10.2014. 2^nd Opposite party directly appeared and filed version. In the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite party contented that the damage to the T.V is a customer induced damage and is not covered under the ambit of warranty term. The Complainant violated the terms of warranty.

4. On perusing the complaint, version of 2^nd Opposite party and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1. Documents produced by Complainant is marked as Exts.A1 to A3. 1^st Opposite Party is exparte and 2^nd Opposite Party not adduced any evidence. The Complainant is not cross examined by 2^nd Opposite party. As per the evidence of Complainant and as per the documents produced by the Complainant, it is found that the analog port of the TV is broken during the warranty period. The Complaint is also filed during the warranty period. The contention of 2^nd Opposite party is that the damage is a customer induced damage. But that contention of 2^nd Opposite party is not proved by 2^nd Opposite party by adducing cogent evidence. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of Complainant. So the Forum found that charging Rs.2,674/- for replacing the analog port during warranty period is a deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.2 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.2,674/- (Rupees Two thousand Six hundred and Seventy Four) only being the charge collected from the Complainant by the Opposite parties and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand ) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole amounts thereafter.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14^th day of January 2015.

Date of Filing:18.06.2014

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Invoice.

A2. Warranty Card.

A3. AOC Service Details.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.