PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the 27^th day of August 2012

                                                                                 Filed on : 23/04/2012

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                 Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No. 249/2012

     Between

Anoop Raj,                                                  :        Complainant

Asarikudiyil house,                                              (By Adv. Tom Joseph,

Chengara,                                                           Court road,

Pattimattom P.O.-683 562                                 Muvattupuzha)

                                                And

 1. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.             :         Opposite parties

     South Emerald Building,                               (1^st O.P. absent)

     3^rd Floor, Cheruparambath road,

     Kadavanthra, Kochi-20.

2.  M/s. Kuruvithadam Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,        (2^nd O.P. party-in-person)

     T.B. road, Opp. Municipal Office,

     Perumbavoor-683 542.

                                          O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

          Brief facts of the complainant’s case is as follows:

          The complainant purchased a CTV Videocon VBN 14 MBF from the second opposite party for Rs. 3,600/- on 24-01-2012.  One year warranty has been provided by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer.  T.V. started showing  problems right from the beginning including sound problem.  After 50 days, the T.V. became totally defunct.  The matter was brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party.  The technician inspected the set and the panel board was removed from the T.V. and taken for replacement.  Subsequently the technician demanded Rs. 1,000/- for the replacement of the panel board.  Though the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, nothing was done by them to get the T.V. set functional.  The defect of the T.V. is due to the manufacturing defect.  The complainant lost the T.V. facility during the Vishu season.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of  the price of the T.V. set  and compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him.

          2. The complainant appeared through counsel.  The 1^st opposite party remained absent.  The second opposite party appeared, but not filed any version.  The complainant  adduced only documentary evidence.  Ext. A1 was marked on his side.  Heard the counsel. 

          3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:

          i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of

            the T.V. set  

          ii. Whether the  opposite parties are liable to pay  compensation

            to the complainant?

          4. Points Nos. i.  Ext. A1 goes to show that the disputed T.V. was purchased by the complainant on 24-01-2012.  The complainant is contented that the problem of the T.V.started right from the beginning  and its panel board was taken for replacement by the technician  but no evidence is before us  to prove the said contention.  Per contra  there is no contrary evidence is on record adduced by the opposite parties to rebut the allegations made by the complainant.  It appears that the opposite party failed to consider the grievance of the complainant especially when the defects were generated during the warranty period.  Therefore, the opposite parties are contractually and legally liable to rectify the defects or replace the same. The  Hon’ble National Commission in Sony Ericson India Ltd Vs. Ashsih Aggarwal  2007 CPJ  294 (NC)  held that there is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Fora in ordering refund of the price of the gadget.   Hence we have  no hesitation to hold  that the 1^st opposite party the manufacturer is  liable to refund the price of the disputed T.V. set with interest to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party being the dealer is exonerated from the liability.  But we are not ordering any compensation since we have already ordered to refund the amount with interest.

          5. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

          The 1^st opposite party shall refund Rs. 3,600/- being  the price of the disputed T.V. to the complainant along with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization.

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.             

                    Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of August 2012

                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                   C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                                                                      Sd/-

         A  Rajesh, President.

                             Sd/-

                                                                    Paul Gomez, Member.         

                                                                   Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                   Senior Superintendent.

                                                 Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits :

                             Ext.   A1               :         Copy of retail invoice

                                                                 dt. 24-01-2012                                  

 Opposite party’s Exhibits :        :         Nil