Date of Complaint : 06/11/2015

                                  Date of Disposal :28/03/2016

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  SMT. K.D. PARVATHY, MEMBER

O R D E R

1. The complaint has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opponents for directing the opponents to rectify the defects of the T.V under warranty and alternatively to replace the same with new TV and also direct the opponents to pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

    

2. The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant purchased a Videocon LED 32” TV on 03/10/2014 from OP-2for a total sum of Rs.19,700/- bearing model No.VJW 32HH-2FA, serial number 11051411012722 7700.The said TV was in working condition only for few months and then started giving trouble with regard to performance, quality of picture, colour, contrast etc.During the month of August 2015 all of a sudden it stopped functioning.The matter was reported to OP-2. OP-2 advised the complainant to contact customer care and a technician came examined and opened the mother board and asked the complainant to replace the mother board at the cost of the complainant.The complainant was shocked and surprised as the TV was under warranty period.Inspite of several request made to OP-2. OP-2 has not properly responded and failed to repair the said T.V.Hence, the complainant approached this Forum seeking remedy.

    

3. After the admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opponents by RPAD.The notice was duly served to OP-1 and 2 and since both the opponents have not presented themselves in the above case, the opponents have been placed exparte and the case was posted for filing the affidavit of the complainant.There upon the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and has relied upon documents in support of his case.The arguments of the complainant was heard and then posted the case for orders.

    

4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant the following points that would arise for our consideration are as follows.

    

5. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service against the opponents and whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

    

6. To what order the party is entitled?

    

    

7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows;

    

         Point No.1 :- In the affirmative

         Point No.2 :- As per order.

    

8. Point No.1:- The complainant in his complaint and in his affidavit has stated that he had purchased Videocon LED 32” TV from OP-2 on 03/10/2014 for a total sum of Rs.19,700/-bearing model No.VJW 32 HH-2FA, serial number 110514110127227700.  The said TV was in working condition for only few months and there after it started giving trouble with regard to performance and in the month of August-2015 all of a sudden it stopped functioning. 

    

        The complainant had asked OP-2 to look into the matter and as per the advice of OP-2 the complainant contacted the customer care and a technician had come and examined the said TV by opening the mother board.  The technician had told the complainant that the mother board had to be replaced at the cost of the complainant.  The complainant was shocked and refused to bear the cost of the mother board and repair charges since the said TV was under warranty period.  The OP-2 had issued warranty card for one year to the complainant which was issued by OP-1 to OP-2.  The complainant states that he had requested the OP-2 several times for the replacement of mother board and for repair of the said TV but OP-2 had not responded properly nor repaired the said TV and hence the complainant got a legal notice issued to the opponents on 10/09/2015.

    

9. The complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the cash bill dated 03/10/2014 issued by OP-2 and also the Xerox copy of the owner’s manual along with warranty which shows that the said TV was covered under one year warranty period.The documentary evidence placed on record fully corroborates the case of the complainant.The notice was duly served to the OP-1 and 2 but since they failed to appear, they were placed exparte.The evidence adduced by the complainant remained unchallenged.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence supported by documents.

    

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established his case as made out in the complaint by placing sufficient materials on record.The OP-2 is directed to rectify the defects of said TV under warranty and alternatively to replace the same with new TV The OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly liable to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages sustained by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

    Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the affirmative.

1. Point No.2:- In view of our findings on point no.1, we proceed to pass the following;

    

   O R D E R

    

        The complaint filed under section 12 of the CP Act by Sri.M.M. Hamsa on 06/11/2015 against M/s TEKCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Aurangabad, Maharastra and Vandam Enterprises by its Proprietor Mr. Damodar, Madikeri is hereby allowed.

2. The OP-2 is hereby directed to rectify the defects of the said TV under warranty and alternatively to replace the same with new TV.

3. The OP-1 and 2 are also jointly liable to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages sustained by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.The OP-1 and OP-2 is directed to comply with the aforesaid orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in failure to comply with the aforesaid orders within the stipulated period of 30 days, the opponents are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the total amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of this order till the date of compliance of the aforesaid order.

4. The complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against the opponents for violation of this order for the offences punishable under section 27 of CP Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.

5. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this    28^th day of  MARCH 2016)

         (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)              (K.D. PARVATHY)       

           MEMBER              PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                  

ANNEXURE

        (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)            (K.D. PARVATHY)      

           MEMBER               PRESIDENT                 MEMBER