BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 149/2010 Filed on 22.05.2010

Dated : 31.08.2010

Complainant:

K. Rajesh Kumar, S/o R. Rajasekharan Nair, Typist, India Reserve Battalion, Police Headquarters, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

(By adv. K.K. Vijayan)

Opposite parties :

1. M/s Tele Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. A 168, Road No. 25, MIDC, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane- 400 604.

    

Addl. Opposite party:

2. TELE Equipments, T.C 2/376(33), Near Ulloor Bridge (NH), Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

This O.P having been heard on 10.08.2010, the Forum on 31.08.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant in pursuance of the promise, offer and representations of the opposite party at Tele Brand T.V show entered into an agreement for the purchase of a product namely “AIR LOUNGE”. The opposite party assured that the product is having sufficient warranty and can be used for multi-purpose. Believing the above mentioned advertisement complainant gave order for the purchase of Air Lounge on December 2009. Thereafter on 11.01.2010 complainant received the product through parcel by virtue of invoice No. V 000091405 through VPP from Sasthamangalam Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram. Complainant paid Rs. 6,493/- for the value of product and Rs. 600/- for parcel charge. From the initial date of the receipt of the parcel itself there were Air leaks, which was reported to the customer care of the opposite party, through telephone. Complainant was replied that an adhesive solution gum was sent along with the product for posting air leakage. Thereafter from day to day new air leakages were started and the matter was informed to the opposite party through fax on 01.03.2010. Thereafter the matter was informed to the customer care service of opposite party for which there was no response. As per the directions of opposite party over telephone the damaged product was returned to the opposite party through courier on 16.03.2010 along with letter. The opposite party assures that a new one will be issued after exchanging the defective items. As there was no response from the opposite party complainant contacted opposite party on 27.04.2010, whereby the complainant was informed by the opposite party that a new Air Lounge was sent through parcel service. Thereafter intimation was given to the complainant on 30.04.2010 by the Sasthamangalam Post office authorities and the complainant had accepted the parcel on 04.05.2010. On opening the parcel the complainant was shocked to notice that the same damaged Air lounge was returned to complainant. The defects and delay on the service of the opposite parties had caused serious damages and loss to the complainant. The deficit and deficiency in service of the opposite party has caused damages and loss to the complainant. The complainant and his family sustained mental agony and torture because of the opposite party. The complainant estimates the mental agony part in terms of money as Rs. 20,000/-. Whereby the total amount payable jointly and severally by the opposite party to the complainant is Rs. 27,493/- on account of the opposite party and deficiency of the service to be rendered by the opposite party including the price of Air lounge and courier charges. The complainant pursued all lawful means to urge the opposite party to carry out their part of agreement, but they have not obliged it so far. Whereby complainant has no other option except to approach this Hon'ble Forum. The cause of action for this complaint has arisen on 11.01.2010, the date on which the Air lounge was delivered and continuously thereafter within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The opposite parties M/s Tele Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd. accepted notice from this Forum, but they never turned up to contest the case. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte.

The complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 6 documents to prove his contentions.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service or unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs of the proceedings?

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has produced 6 documents to prove his case. In pursuance of the promise, offer and representations of the opposite party, the Tele Brand TV show, complainant entered into an agreement for the purchase of the product namely “Air Lounge”. Complainant has received the product through parcel by virtue of invoice No. V 000091405 through VPP. Invoice bill is marked as Ext. P1. As per Ext. P1 the complainant has paid Rs. 6,493/- to the 1^st opposite party on 11.01.2010. The complainant stated that from the initial date of receipt of the product itself there were air leaks, which was reported to the Customer Care of the opposite party. Ext. P2 and P3 are the details of fax message. As per the direction of the 1^st opposite party the product was returned to them through courier on 16.03.2010. Copy of the letter and receipt are produced and marked as Exts. P4 and P5. Ext. P6 is the intimation letter given by postal authorities to the complainant for the acceptance of the parcel. The opposite party did not send a new Air Lounge to the complainant, but the same damaged air lounge was sent to the complainant. In this case the opposite party received an amount of Rs. 6,493/- from the complainant for the air lounge. But due to the defect of the product he could not use the same. But the opposite parties neither cured the defects of the product nor has replaced it with a defect free one to the complainant. Hence the act of the 1^st opposite party is amounting to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the 1^st opposite party is liable for the same. In this case there is no transaction between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party. Hence we find that 1^st opposite party only is liable. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 6,493/- with 9% annual interest from 11.01.2010 till the date of realization to the complainant and the 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.

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 31^st day of August 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 149/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Invoice bill/cash memo dated 11.01.2010.

P2 - Copy of letter issued by complainant.

P3 - Copy of transaction report dated 01.03.2010

P4 - Copy of receipt dated 16.03.2010.

P5 - Copy of letter dated 16.03.2010 issued by complainant.

P6 - Copy of intimation letter dated 30.04.2010

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb