DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 18^th day of April 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

Date of filing: 27/11/2008

(C.C.No.132/2008)

Syed Sultan

S/o.Shaik Dawood

Fathima Manzil

Sanguvarmedu,

Kalpathy Post

Palakkad District - Complainant

(By Adv.M.Sugadhakumar)

V/s

1. M/s.Jamal Sales Corporation

EL/39/2014 Jamal Building

Court Road, Palakkad.

(By Adv.Akbar Ali)

2. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd.

(Electronics Division)

39/3655, S.A.Road,

Valanjambalam,

Ernakulam, Cochin

3. San Sui Main Service Centre,

Ground Floor, Marol Bhavan

Marol Co-op.Industrial Area,

M.V.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai

4. San Sui Care Centre,

Santhi Nagar Road,

Thiruvambadi, Thrissur - Opposite parties

(Party in person)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Brief facts of the complaint :

The complainant had purchased a 29 inch SANSUI Colour Television namely “Thunder Master 29” of serial No.61404 00259 on 27/08/2004 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- from the 1^st opposite party. At the time of purchase the 1^st opposite party promised and assured that the TV has a warranty of 7 years including picture tube. Also the 1^st opposite party had issued a warranty card to the complainant. He purchased the television by taking a loan from M/s.Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.

After two years the Television set functioned more or less good even though it displayed foggy pictures at times. On 10/11/2006 the entire display on the television screen was shown blank. Then the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone and booked the complaint. Sri.Pradeep, as the Service Engineer of 4^th opposite party inspected the Television set and stated that the picture tube was fully damaged and it needs to be replaced. The complainant was shocking to hear that the picture tube of the brand new television was not even used for 2 years had to be replaced. The television set was taken for repairs on the very same day. But after such repairs the television had showed the very same complaint of the blank display. Again the television was taken for repairs in several times. But the defect was not rectified. On 27/9/07 the complainant had sent a notice to the 4^th opposite party. Sri.Praveen, the Co-ordinator of 4^th opposite party called the complainant over phone and demanded to sent the bill copy, warranty card copy and also a DD for Rs.2000/- in favour of the 2^nd opposite party for replacing the picture tube of the television. The complainant had sent all the documents as demanded by the 4^th opposite party except DD. But there is no response from any of the opposite parties. Thus the complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 29/4/08 to all opposite parties demanding the replacement of the television. The opposite parties have not replied. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to

1. Replace the defective television with a brand new television of the same or a higher category or

2. replace the defective picture tube of the television with a new one and there by to hand over the television in a working condition

3. Provide 5 more years warranty including the picture tube to the said replaced or rectified television

4. Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant

5. Pay the cost of the proceedings

1^st Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. 1^st opposite party stated that they have dealership of various electronics and home appliances companies. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the television from their shop. Being a dealer the 1^st opposite party is only having the authority and responsibility of selling the goods of different companies. The responsibility of service and all are included in the opposite parties 2 to 4 and they are doing the same as well. The 1^st opposite party stated that the defect of the picture tube was proved by the complainant. Hence the 1^st opposite party has no obligation or responsibility in indulge in these matters and being so, the 1^st opposite party is an unnecssary party in the complaint. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties not present and set exparte. 4^th opposite party appeared personally but did not file any version or proof affidavit.

Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party 1 filed affidavit. No documents produced by the 1^st opposite party. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue 1 & II

The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the television from their shop. In Ext.A1 and A2 clearly shows the television set has purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party. In Ext.A1 warranty terms and conditions in 11. comprehensive warranty is given free on picture tube for CTV for 7 years including free replacement of picture tube. The complainant stated that television set was purchased on 27/8/2004 and the 1^st complaint of the television screen was shown blank on 10/11/06. It is very clear that the television set is under warranty period. Then the opposite parties are liable to rectify the product with immediate effect. According to the complainant a service engineer from the 4^th opposite party examining the product and confirmed that the picture tube has been damaged. There is no contra evidence was produced by the opposite parties. Normally when the product will become defective within the warranty period, the complainant will inform the same to the dealer from where the product is purchased and the dealer will make necessary arrangements to rectify the product through the authorised service centre of the company. In the present case the summons of Opposite parties 2 & 4 issued to the address mentioned in Ext.A1 not served. Finally the complainant filed an application to direct the 1^st opposite party to furnish correct address of opposite parties 2 & 4. Thereafter the summons was served to opposite parties 2 & 4. But 2^nd opposite party absent before the Forum. 4^th Opposite party present in person. But no version or affidavit filed. All opposite parties are not ready for repairing the television set. Selling a television with lot of promise of service and warranty. But no service was done in proper at the time of complaint. The purchase of the television was admitted by the 1^st opposite party. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the defects of picture tube. Also the complainant stated that about two years the television set functioned more or less good even though it displayed foggy picture at times. On perusal of records it is noted that the complainant had sent lawyer notices to the opposite parties. No reply was sent by all opposite parties. The opposite parties have not trying to replace the television set or repaired the damaged picture tube. 1^st opposite party has filed version and affidavit. The 1^st opposite party stated that the responsibility of service and all are included in the opposite parties 2 to 4. But no version and affidavit was filed by opposite parties 2 to 4. In Ext.A3 and Ext.A5 the complainant has taken loan from Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. to purchase the television. In the above discussions, we are of the view that deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is a fit case for awarding compensation. Hence the complaint allowed.

We direct all opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is eligible for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 18^th day of April 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Warranty card dt.27/8/04 issued by OP.

Ext.A2 - Copy of Bill No.1199 dt.27/8/04 issued by OP

Ext.A3 – Copy of customer statement dated 7/3/07 of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.

Ext.A4 – Postal receipt and acknowledgment card dt.27/9/07

Ext.A5 – Copy of affidavit

Ext.A6 - Copy of lawyer notice with postal receipts

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.3,000/- thousand allowed as cost of the proceedings.