BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.25/2017

Dated this the 1^st day of February 2018

(Date of Institution:  28.08.2017)

R. Balachander, son of Ramachandiran      

No.16, III Cross Street, Balaji Nagar,

Oulgaret, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s Mirc Electronics Limited

    ONIDA House,                                 

    G-1, M.I.D.C. Mahakali Caves Road,        

    Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093.

2. M/s Sky Electronics        

     Onida Service Centre

     No.27/3, II Cross Street  

     Iyyanar Nagar, Puducherry – 605 013.

3. M/s Mirc Electronics Ltd.,

    ONIDA House    

    No.18, 4^th Lane                           

    Nungampakkam High Road

    Nungampakkam, Opp. To MOP Vaishnava College

    Chennai – 34.

4. M/s Mirc Electronics Ltd.,

    No.84, 2^nd Salai Street,

    Moolakulam, Puducherry – 9.

5. M/s Prakash Super Store

    No.145, Vellala Street,

    Puducherry – 605 001.

                                                                    ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A.,  LL.B.,

           MEMBER

Tmt. D. KAVITHA, B.A.,  LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Thiru. N.K. Perumal, Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru. A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the old fault T.V. by a new one; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for not functioning of the TV for 9-1/2 months; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for depression and mental strain caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant purchased a ONIDA LED TV LE050FS on 01.10.2015 from OP5 for Rs.44,500/- with warranty of one year and extended warranty of two years.  The said Television was not working from the month of September 2016  for which the complainant made a complaint with Onida Service Centre at Puducherry.  On testing, it was reported by the service centre that the main board is having problem and agreed to replace the same.  The complainant stated that after a delay of 70 days, the defect was rectified by replacing a new board.  Again, within three days, it was not working and on the complaint made by the complainant, another main board was replaced after a month and got rectified.  Again, from the first week of January 2017, the alleged T.V. was not working and the complainant made a complaint on 10.01.2017 vide complaint call No. 17018376380137 for which the opposite parties stated that the particular model batch of TVs developing with frequent faults and from the Chennai Service Centre Manager by name, Thirumurugan spoke to the complainant after repeated approach to him and assured to replace a new TV to the complainant very shortly.  That inspite of repeated requests, no one has responded properly.  On 27.05.2017 the complainant was asked to bring the TV to OP2 Service Centre for replacement, accordingly, the complainant handed over the TV with OP2 who asked the complainant to come on 29.05.2017.  On 29.05.2017 the OP2 informed the complainant that  there is no replacement of existing TV and would be rectified by replacing a panel board very shortly and take delivery after rectification.  The complainant stated that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice  by selling the default model TV and also the non-availability of TV in the complainant's house from October 2015 to January 2016 and also from the first week of January 2017 to till date caused depression and heavy mental strain to the complainant and his family members.  Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice on 10.06.2017 to the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the new TV and also for other compensation,  the same was acknowledged by all the opposite parties and only the OP1 sent reply stating that there is no any reference for them in respect of the above said complaint and also stated that they will give reply again after getting particulars, but till date there is no any reply by OP1 and others.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.       The opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

4.       On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C11 were marked through him. 

5.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased one ONIDA LED TV LE050FS manufactured by the first opposite party and sold by OP5 on 01.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.44,500/- vide Ex.C1 cash bill dated 01.10.2015.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 are the service providers.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer to the opposite parties..

7.       Point No.2:

          The complainant was examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C11.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submitted that he has purchased a ONIDA LED TV LE050FS from the fifth opposite party on 01.10.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.44,500/- in cash.  The television set carries warranty period of 12 months and extended warranty period of two years as per Ex.C2.   The complainant submitted that since September 2016 the TV was not properly working and it was reported to the OP2.  The OP2 inspected the TV set and stated that the main board is having problem and should be replaced.    The complainant further submitted that after delay of 70 days only, the main board was replaced by the second opposite party.  Even then, within three days, the Television was not working properly and  another main board was replaced after a month and the complainant has received the TV set.    The complainant alleged that again from the first week of January 2017, the said TV was not functioning and lodged a complaint on 10.01.2017.  In response to the said complaint, the second opposite party asked the complainant to hand over the TV with them for total replacement.  The complainant has handed over the same on 27.05.2017 with the OP2 vide Ex.C3.  The complainant further alleged that instead of replacing the old TV with a new one, the OP2 rectified and replaced a panel board and delivered the same.    Being not satisfied with the attitude of the second opposite party, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 10.06.2017 to all the opposite parties vide Ex.C4.  Though the same was acknowledged by all the opposite parties vide Exs.C5 to C9, the OP1 alone sent the reply on 20.06.2017 vide Ex.C10.  Since, there was no further communication from the opposite parties, the complainant filed this complaint.    

8.       From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 the invoice and the Ex.C2 the warranty card, that the complainant purchased the alleged Television set on 01.10.2015 with warranty of 12 months and extended warranty of two years from first opposite party.  On perusal of Ex.C3, the Television set was handed over with the OP2 on 27.05.2017 for total replacement.    Further, on perusal of Ex.C4 the legal notice and the Ex.C11 the Email, the opposite parties did not care either to replace the TV with new one or to carry out the recurring repair.     

9. From the documents available on records and in very particular vide Ex.C3, this Forum observed that the main board which is a vital part of the said TV got repaired and the same was also replaced by the opposite parties twice.  Even then, the same problem occurred frequently.  The  OP2 has received back the
Television Set for total replacement, but they could not replace the same with a new one even after repeated demand.  Hence, this Forum determined that, due to the repeated and recurring repairs and the defects could not be rectified by the OP2, the TV set has manufacturing defect.  Hence, it is very clear that the television purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect within the warranty period and the purpose for which the television  was purchased by the complainant was not served.  The Opposite Parties, though received the summons from this Forum,  not come forward to appear and put forth their contentions.  Hence, the complainant has established his claim with material evidence.  From the above facts and circumstances, this Forum is inclined to coming to a conclusion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, and also unfair trade practice, which caused the complainant the mental agony and the monetary loss.  Thus, the complainant is entitled to get back the price of the T.V. set and the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant for the loss and injuries suffered by the complainant.    

10.     Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and

1. The first opposite party is hereby directed to return back the sale price of the TV of Rs.44,500/- to the complainant;
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-            as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice jointly and severally.
3. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 1^st day of  February 2018.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:  

CW.1          21.11.2017           R. Balachander   

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESSES Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER