BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the  30^th day of April 2012

                                                                                                        Filed on : 21/12/2011

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

          Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                  Member

          Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No.710/2011

       Between

P.S. Srikanth,                                   :         Complainant

Pallimattathil house,                                  (Party-in-person)

Mulavoor P.O.,

 Muvattupuzha.

                                                And                                                  

 1. M/s. KLM Trading Corporation, :         Opposite parties

     Manjeri P.O.,                                         (Parties-in-person)

     Malappuram -676 121.

2.  M/s. Baker Electronic company,

     Kacherithazham,

     Muvattupuzha-686 661.

                                                 O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

          The facts that induced filing of this complaint are the following:

          The complainant purchased an impex T.V. set from the 2^nd opposite party on01-04-2011 for Rs. 5,800/-.  One  year warranty has given for the T.V. set.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the T.V. set.  The T.V. set went out of order within 3 months from the date of purchase.  The matter was brought to the 2^nd opposite party.  Subsequently technicians were inspected the set on two different occasions.  But they failed to rectify the defect.  As per their advise the complainant entrusted  the set with the 2^nd opposite party.  But in spite of repeated requests the set was not returned to the complaint.   The complainant contented that the T.V. set supplied to him suffers from inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence this complaint.  The complainant is seeking the following relief against the opposite parties

          i.  to refund of the price of the T.V. set.

          ii.   Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for the loss of T.V. facility for the last four months and costs of the proceedings.

          2. The complainant represented through counsel.  Despite  receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite parties  remained absent.  The complainant filed proof affidavit.  Exts. A1 was marked on his side.  Heard the counsel

          3. Points No.i&ii.  According to the complainant on two occasions the 2^nd opposite party’s technicians inspected the disputed television but they could not rectify the defects.  He further contended that  the television set is still with the 2^nd opposite party.  His repeated request to return the same was discarded by the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties are given ample opportunity to substantiate their case.   In   Ext. A1 warranty card  the seal of the 2^nd opposite party is affixed.  No evidence is on record which goes to show  that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer/importer of the television set.  But the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged. Therefore we are constrained to believe the case of the complainant.   It appears that the opposite parties failed to consider the grievance of the complainant especially when the defects were generated during the warranty period.  Therefore the opposite parties are contractually and legally liable to rectify the defects or replace the same. The  Hon’ble National Commission in Sony Ericson India Ltd Vs. Ashs Aggarwal  2007 CPJ  294 (NC)  held that there is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Fora in ordering refund of the price of the gadget.   Hence we have  no hesitation to hold  that the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the disputed T.V. set to the complainant.  In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not ordering any compensation but the complainant is entitled to get litigation costs from the opposite party.

          4.  Accordingly we partly allow the complaint as follows:

          The opposite parties shall jointly and severally  refund Rs. 5,800/- being the price of a the defective TV. Set to the complainant .

II. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant

          The above order  shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order,  failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.  till realization.      

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the30^th day of April 2012.

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                    C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                    A  Rajesh, President

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                          Paul Gomez, Member

                                                          Forwarded/By Order,

                                                          Senior Superintendent.

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits:

                   Ext. A1                           :         Copy of  warranty card

Opposite party’s exhibits:                   :         Nil