BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 508/2003 Filed on 29.12.2003 Dated : 30.11.2009 Complainant: K. Vikraman Nair, Kavuvila Veedu, T.C 23/1186, Karamana P.O, Melarannoor, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. Chirayinkil C.P. Bhadra Kumar) Opposite parties:
M/s Kalyani Sharp India Ltd., Central Marketing Division, Gat No. 686/4, Koregaon Bhima, Tal. Shirur District, Pune – 412 216. M/s Maya Electronics, represented by its Manager, Near G.P.O, Pulimoodu, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
(By adv. K.S. Vijayakumar)
This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2009, the Forum on 30.11.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER The brief facts of the case are as follows: Lured by the advertisement of the opposite parties, the complainant had purchased a Sharp VCD from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs. 9,990/- on 23.11.2002 which had a warranty for six months. But to the utmost dismay of the complainant, within 15 days from the date of purchase, the said article developed complaints and began to malfunction. Immediately the said set was taken by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and the same was returned to him after replacing a disc and the complainant was also told by the 2nd opposite party that the entire defects have been rectified. But again the set developed similar complaints thereby disabling the complainant and his family members from viewing pictures by installing CDs. Immediately a complaint was lodged by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and accordingly the complainant was directed to produce CDs normally being used by the complainant and accordingly complainant took a CD on rent and produced the same before the 2nd opposite party which the 2nd opposite party had transmitted to the 1st opposite party for diagnosing the defect. After a month, the said CD was returned to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party by saying that nothing can be done on the matter and replacement of the set is the only remedy and it is to be done by the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer and the said information was passed over to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party only in the 1st week of May 2003. The complainant states that from the defects of the said machine and also from the inability of the opposite parties to rectify the same, it is proved that the said set is having manufacturing defects and the 2nd opposite party had supplied a defective set to the complainant which amounts to grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on his part. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances. Opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. No assurance other than what is given in the manual was made. The warranty was subject to the caution contained therein. No complaint was made within 15 days or the set was produced as alleged. The complainant has not given any date. In the fact the first complaint was received on 01.02.2003. On the same day the technician visited the complainant and demonstrated the set function properly. The complainant was satisfied. Again on 29.03.2003 another complaint was received. It was attended to and found that the set was O.K. The complaint was due to the C.D complaint. Complainant was advised to use the C.D as suggested in the Manual and not to use any pirated or low quality C.D. On 31.05.2003 1st opposite party received a letter dated 09.05.2003 issued by the complainant. On the same day a reply was sent to the complainant to the fact that the service centre was directed to attend to the matter. The service personnel examined the set and the set was found O.K. Complainant was conveyed that there is absolutely no defect with the set. He was convinced on demonstration. Thereafter he was advised to use proper C.D as directed in the operation manual. It can be seen that the set is not defective and that the complaint is seeking to use this Hon'ble Forum to make an unlawful gain of Rs. 20,990/- after purchasing a set for a sum of Rs. 9,990/-. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P4. The expert commissioner has been examined as CW1 and marked Ext. C1 report. Opposite party has been examined as DW1. From the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for the rliefs claimed?
Points (i) & (ii):- The invoice/bill marked as Ext. P1 proves the purchase of one Sansui VCD+MP3 1875 U by the complainant for a payment of Rs. 8,990/-. But on its reverse it has been noted that “Sansui VCD change to Sharp VCD-Rs. 9990/-”. The opposite parties have not objected the same. The allegation of the complainant is that within 15 days of its purchase the VCD began to malfunction which according to the complainant is due to manufacturing defect. The opposite parties have contended that the complaint was due to the C.D complaint as the complainant was advised to use the CDs mentioned in the manual. We have gone through the records produced by both parties. The report of the expert commissioner says that the VCD portion of the unit is not working properly. Furthermore CW1 reports that “the system was not working properly with the petitioner's C.D or CDs kept in his hand and it worked only with the CDS supplied by 1st opposite party. There is interruption in the visuals while using original CDs which is caused due to failure of decoding mechanism. That when a data loss is detected, the inbuilt programme will adjust the variable factors and decode the contents of CD without interruption in visual displayed and in this VCD the above mentioned function is not working. That this VCD will not function with most of the CDs available in the market”. The commissioner has concluded that the above defects are due to manufacturing defect. CW1 has been examined by both parties. CW1 has deposed that “ഞാന് കൊണ്ട് വന്ന CD സാധാരണ market-ല് available ആയിട്ടുള്ള C.D യാണ്”. “MPG 1 Format ആദ്യകാലത്തുണ്ടായിരുന്നതാണ്. ഈ VCD പരിശോധിക്കുന്ന സമയത്ത് manual-ല് പറയുന്ന CD നിലവിലില്ല. 2002 അവസാനമായതോടെയാണ് ഈ series ഇല്ലാതായത്. ഈ manual-ല് പറയുന്ന CD കള് market-ല് കിട്ടാനില്ല”. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently argued that the set is not defective and the complaint raised by the complainant is due to the use of low quality pirated CDs or CDs other than those mentioned in the manual. But nothing has been brought in evidence to challenge other defects mentioned in Ext. C1. We are of the view that the report of the commissioner stands unshaken. Moreover as per Ext. D3, any C.D that contains motion pictures can be played. There is no allegation that pirated, writable and rewritable CDs/VCDs have been used by the expert commissioner at the time of inspection. Moreover when a consumer purchase such sets, if at all any specifications are there it should be properly made known to the consumers like this complainant. It is very hard to believe that a labour worker like this complainant would purchase, with his hard earned money, a set as the one which is in dispute, if he had been made known that only specific CDs would work in it. Considering the above discussion, we find that the VCD suffers from manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled for replacement of the VCD with a defect free one and he is also found entitled for compensation for the inconvenience caused to him due to the supply of defective set. In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall replace the VCD in dispute with a new defect free one and if the same model is not available, then the opposite party shall refund the price of the VCD i.e; Rs. 9,990/-. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% till realisation. On compliance of the above order the complainant shall return the VCD in dispute to the opposite parties. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of November 2009.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
O.P. No. 508/2003 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Vikraman Nair II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of cash bill receipt dated 23.11.2002 issued by the 2nd opposite party. P2 - Photocopy of warranty certificate dated 23.11.2003. P3 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 09.05.2003 issued to the opposite parties. P4 - Photocopy of postal receipts (2 Nos.)
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : DW1 - Narayana Sharma. IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Service Report dated 01.02.2003 D2 - Service Report dated 29.03.2003 D3 - Operation manual of QT-VCD-65. V COURT EXHIBIT: CW1 - Anil Kumar C1 - Commission Report
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
