Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1779/2008

Mr. Sree Harsha Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Juris Consult

30 Jan 2009

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1779/2008

Mr. Sree Harsha Ram,
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s. Refrotronics
M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd.,
M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd.,
M/s.Philips Electronics India Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of Filing:13.08.2008 Date of Order:30.01.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1779 OF 2008 Sree Harsha Ram S/o. H.R. Nagaraja Rao R/at NO. 74, Padmasree Basava Samith Layout Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore 560 097 Complainant V/S 1. M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd. Reg. Office at No. 7 Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata 700 020 2. M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd. Corporate Office at: Technopolis Knowledge Park Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 093 3. Service Branch – Philips No. 121, “The Estate” North Side, 4th Floor Dickenson Road Bangalore 560 042 and represented Herein by its Service Head Mr. Ramkumar 4. M/s. Reftronics # 706, “Suvarna Complex” BEL III Block, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Bangalore 97 Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant purchased TV set from opposite party No. 4 on 23.10.2005 with one year manufacturing warranty and an extended gift warranty of two years i.e. till 23.10.2008. After passing of about two years the said set experienced serious technical problem and was unable to display any picture or sound. On 27.12.2007 complainant took the defective TV to opposite party service center for servicing and the said service centre informed the complainant that the defect in the TV tube filament was permanent and could neither be rectified nor replaced as the TV model had become obsolete and out of production. On 05.04.2008 complainant addressed letter to opposite party requesting either the defective set be replaced with another TV set of equal value and technical features or in the alternative to refund the cost of the TV. The opposite parties failed to respond or redress the complainant’s grievance. On 22.07.2008 complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not reply to the said notice. Hence, the complainant prays to direct the opposite party to replace the TV set with similar feature / programs or of equal monetary value or to refund the cost and to pay compensation. 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that the complainant was promptly informed about the defect in the TV and offered a new LCD TV which had better features and was of higher technology in terms of sound and picture quality. The complainant did not respond to the offer and filed this present complaint. It is stated that opposite parties are willing to settle the grievances of the complainant. The commercial offer and replacement was still in process would have been concluded. But complainant filed this complaint. It is further case of the opposite parties that picture tube can be replaced but at that point of time the spare part of the same was not available. Thus, commercial offer of replacement was given to the complainant. It is further case of the opposite parties that the product had not gone obsolete. It is admitted by the opposite parties that spare part was not available. LCD television Model 32PFL7422 at Rs. 20,000/- was offered. Complainant did not agree to the offer. The market price of the said TV is around Rs. 50,000/-. Opposite parties agreed for that. But complainant did not reply. 3. Arguments are heard. During the course of hearing the complainant representative and complainant were present before the open court. There was some talk for settlement of the issue amicably. The representative of the opposite party company asked for furnishing guarantee card to settle the issue. 2-3 dates were given for arriving to settlement. Ultimately, no proper and acceptable solution worked out and the matter did not settle. Ultimately, the matter was heard. 4. The complainant counsel submitted that the opposite parties’ company had given offer for giving another LCD television model and the opposite parties clearly admitted that spare parts of the said television purchased by the complainant was not available in the market. The spare part was obsolete and repair is not possible. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that complainant was informed that spare parts were not available and commercial offer of replacement was given to the complainant. Therefore, by the defence version it is clear that the TV purchased by the complainant was defective in nature. Therefore, the complainant wants refund of the bill amount of Rs. 34,904/-. Since, the TV is having manufacturing defect and the spare parts are not available the product of the model has gone obsolete. Therefore, the complainant is right in seeking refund of the amount. The complainant had made some correspondence with the company before filing complaint. He has also got issued legal notice to the opposite parties before filing complaint. Opposite parties being a very reputed and standard company it is the obligation and commitment of the company to supply defect free product to the customers. The complainant having purchased TV set by investing huge amount if the TV gives trouble and problem really it works out hardship, mental agony and tension to the customers. Customer was the boss in the past and is at present and will be in future. He is the most important visitor in the premises of the service providers or company. He is not dependent on the company. On the other hand the service providers or the company are dependent on him. Consumer Protection Act is enacted by the parliament of India to safe guard the better interest of the consumers. It is the social and benevolent legislation intended to safe guard the rights of the customers. The Consumer Protection Act is a mile stone in the history of socio economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit. It attempts to remove the helplessness of consumer which he faces against powerful business house. The opposite party had given commercial offer. No doubt this offer is appreciable but the complainant is not ready to accept the offer. He is insisting for refund of the bill amount. The complainant is not ready to invest another Rs. 20,000/- and to take new model worth Rs. 50,000/-. As per the commercial offer it is clear that opposite parties have given Rs. 30,000/- concession to the complainant. Whereas, the complainant is demanding refund of Rs. 34,904/-. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the complainant in demanding refund of the bill amount. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case it is just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite parties to refund the bill amount of Rs. 34,904/- to the complainant. The complainant has sought Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. On the facts of the case it is not a case to grant compensation to the complainant. Refund of the bill amount will meet the ends of justice. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally are directed to refund Rs. 34,904/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation. 6. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER