CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.208/2013

Dated this the 30^th  day of October 2014.

            ( Present:  Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB.                              :  President)                      

                             Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                                         : Member

                                                                                                               ORDER

By G.Yadunadhan, President:

          The case of the complainant is that Petitioner’s brother Faizal who is working abroad at Oman had purchased a Sony L.C.D.Television set Model No.KLV-32 BX 320 from Jumbo Electronics Co.Ltd on 09.08.2012 and brought it home in Kerala, the same month.  The set was put to function at the family residence of the purchaser.  The T.V.Set had carried a service warranty for one year from 09.08.2012.  At the time of purchase the dealer abroad had told the purchaser that the complaint against the T.V.unit  if any could be placed their authorized service centre M/s.Modonna Systems and Services, Authorised Sony service centre, Near English Church  at Calicut.  The T.V.Set had worked without complaint till April 2013, by the 10^th April 2013 the set stopped functioning.  T.V.set should be repaired and made to function without asking for any charges  from the petitioner.  But the second opposite party refused to make any repairs and the  Mechanic went back. The second respondent had failed to get the T.V.Set repaired against the faults, within the warranty period.  The unit has been default since April 2013.

            The act of the opposite parties are deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore  complainant seeking relief against opposite parties directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5000/-

            Opposite party No.1 & 2 Notice served.  Opposite party No.2 notice served, called absent and set exparte.  After serving notice first opposite party filed their version stating that the disputed Television was purchased from the Sultanate of Oman on 09.08.2012 and the same has admittedly being used for eight months before the defect manifested itself.  Opposite party herein has failed to  provide services to the complainant as it is the complainant himself who has failed to bring on record the original purchase invoice and has concealed the said fact from the Forum. Considering all the facts complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

Points for consideration

1. Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party? If so what is the relief and cost?

     Complainant was continuously absent for the last 3 consecutive postings.   On perusal of the complaint itself no specific date was mentioned for  the defect was occurred. No documents to show that it was inspected by the second opposite party and also no document to show that regarding the warranty card. The original purchase bill also not seen produced before this  Fora.  In absence of evidence or documents from the complainant Fora  can not go along with complaint itself.  Non production of original bill and warranty card  Fora can not support the claim  of the petitioner.  Therefore no merit in this complaint, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 30^th day of October 2014.

Date of filing:14.05.2013.

                                                           SD/-PRESIDENT                                                                         SD/-MEMBER

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT