BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/08/2011

Date of Order : 29/02/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 446/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

The complainant purchased an LCD TV from the 2^nd opposite party on 30-12-2010 at a price of Rs. 17,223/-. The 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer of the LCD TV has provided one year warranty for the same. The gadget went out of order within 2 weeks from the date of purchase. The 2^nd opposite party replaced the same with a new piece. However, the replaced one as well showed the very same defect of the first one which was “no picture”. In spite of repeated complaints, the opposite parties failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. The present defect of the TV is due to its inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the TV with interest together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The notice of the 1^st opposite party was returned unserved, The service of notice of the 1^st opposite party is incomplete. Despite service of notice from this Forum, the 2^nd opposite party opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons. Proof affidavit has been by the complainant and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the TV set from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

4. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 goes to show that the complainant purchased an LCD TV from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 17,223/- on 13-12-2010. Ext. A2 warranty card goes to show that the manufacturer has provided one year warranty for the same. According to the complainant, though the 2^nd opposite party replaced the said TV set with a new one, the replaced one as well suffers from manufacturing defects. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as to the reason for the defect of the TV set. There is no reason to repudiate the claim of the complainant. According to the Hon'ble National Commission, a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the product. (Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (IV (2007) CPJ 294 (NC) ). The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission is squarely applicable in this case, so we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount as per Ext. A1 with 12% interest form the 2^nd opposite party, who is the dealer and the one who sold the TV set manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.

5. Point No. ii. :- Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely, the order for compensation and costs are not called for.

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that, the 2^nd opposite party shall refund the price of the TV set as per Ext. A1 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realisation. In that event, the complainant shall return the defective TV set to the 2^nd opposite party simultaneously at the cost of the 2^nd opposite party.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of February 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========