R.Vijayakumar, Member
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is filed for realization of Rs.16,700/- as the price of TV Set, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the total amount and for cost.
(2)
The complainant’s case is that the opposite party had not replaced the defective TV or even responded to the repeated requests and to the Advocate Notice sent by the complainant. The complainant had purchased a new brand ONIDA – C TV – 29 Slim on 10.08.2008 for the price of Rs.16,700/-. From the very beginning, minor complaints were found in its performance and it was informed to the opposite party. On 25/02/2009 the set was totally dead. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties directly and through telephone. But the opposite party had not responded. After lodging complaint on 14.03.2009 an authorized technician of opposite parties received the defective TV set and informed that the TV set will be replaced with a new brand within one week. But they had not replaced the set or responded to the continuous requests of the complainant directly and through telephone calls. The willful act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and gross violation of warranty conditions. On 25.04.2009 a legal notice was issued to the opposite party by the complainant. But even then the opposite party remained non-responsive. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
The opposite parties contention is that even though the opposite parties had the repaired the defective TV at properly and informed the matter, the complainant refused to take that TV set. On getting information that the newly purchased TV set became defective, the opposite party had taken and sent it to the Kollam office of second opposite party. Another TV set for temporary use was given to him. On inspection it was found that there is complaint in the board. The defect was rectified and it was informed thorough telephone to the complainant. But he refused to take the TV and demanded refund of the price of TV set. There is no unfair practice from the part of opposite party.
(3)
Even though the opposite parties had offered to give a brand new TV to the complainant that also was denied by the complainant.
The complainant filed affidavit.PW1 examined. Exts.P1 to P5 marked.
From the side of opposite party, DW1 examined. Exts.D1 and D2 marked.
The points that would arise for consideration are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. Compensation and cost.
Points No.1 and 2
Admittedly the complainant had purchased ONIDA C TV 29 Slim for the price of Rs.16,700/-. The main allegation of the complainant is that the TV was defective from the very beginning and it was found dead on 25/02/09. The matter was informed to the opposite party timely. The opposite parties had not rectified the defects properly in time.
The opposite parties contention is that they had rectified the defects as early as possible and in the meantime an alternative arrangement was made by them giving a standby TV set to the complainant. There is no contention regarding the defect in the TV set. The opposite parties had stated that the mother board was replaced with a new one which was delivered from opposite party’s company. The contention in this regard is that the necessity of replacement of board and reasons for the delay of curing defects also was not informed to the complainant. The opposite parties had not produced any
(4)
document to show that they had informed the reasons for delay to the complainant. The Learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the opposite party had cured all the defects changing board and informed to the complainant that the set was ready for replacement. It is further argued that on30/05/2009 opposite party’s mechanic came along with the TV set for giving back it with delivery Chalan No.92 C3. But the opposite parties failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of these arguments. The opposite parties stated that they had directly contacted and informed their willingness to give a new TV set. But the complainant took an adamant stand with his demand for the price of TV. His intention is to accrue money from the opposite parties.
The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that if the opposite parties are ready to deliver a new TV set to the complainant now, it will be quite useless for the complainant because in the meantime he had purchased another new brand TV set. The opposite parties failed to prove that they were ready to deliver a new brand TV to the complainant.
There is no whisper or explanation regarding the reason, why there was no reply notice for the Advocate Notice sent by the complainant. As the complainant had stated, if a brand new TV is delivered it will be quite useless for him as he had already purchased another TV set.
On the basis of the above mentioned facts and discussions we find that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. The points found accordingly.
(5)
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing to the opposite parties to pay Rs.16,700/- as the price of TV, compensation Rs.2,000/- and cost Rs.1,000/-.
The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 31ST day of January 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Sunilkumar
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Invoice
P2 - Product receipt
P3 - Legal Notice
P4 - Acknowledgment card
P5 - Warranty card
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Shibu Joseph
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Authorization
D2 - Delivery chalan receipt
