Date of Filing:  01.11.2017

                                                                                        Date of Order: 30.04.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT.

HON’BLE SMT. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER

ON THIS THE  TUESDAY  THE 30^th    DAY OF APRIL, 2019

C.C.No.451 /2017

Between

Smt. A.Subashini, W/o. Sri A.Neelankar Kumar,

Aged about 35 Years, Occ: House wife.

H.No. 9-4-227, Near Gandi Maisamma Temple,

Rezimental Bazar, Secunderabad.                                               ……Complainant

And

1.     M/s. Sri Kalyani, Dealer Sansui Hyundai,

    House of Electronics, Sukhnivas Building,

    8-1-416 & 417, R.P.road,

          Secunderabad – 500 003.

2.     Sri Renuka Enterprises, Authorized Service

    Centre for Sansui  Hyundai, P.No.109 & 110, G-1,

    Sri Venkateshwara Nilayam, New Bowenpally,

    Opp: More Super Market, Secunderabad – 500 011.

    Rep.by its Chairman  & Managing Director.                    ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainants             :  M/s.K R Ashok (died)

Counsel for the Opposite PartyNo.1 :   Absent.

Counsel for the Opposite PartyNo.2  : Party in person.        

O R D E R

(By Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com L L B., Member on behalf of the bench)

1)            This complaint  has been  preferred under Section 12 of Consumer Protection  Act,  1986  for   a direction to the opposite parties to get the Sansui Hyundai 5-“ Led smart T.V.  or replace the same with a new one, or to pay  a sum of    Rs.42,000/- towards  the cost of the Television set along with interest @36% p.a.  from the date of purchase of the  Television set, till the date of realization,  to ward compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards  mental agony and costs of the complaint.  

2)  The complainant’s case in brief is:

The complainant has purchased a T.V. 50“LED Smart T.V. from the opposite party No.1 ( who is authorized dealer) on 23.12.2016 for  a sum of Rs.42,000/-.  The respondent  No.1 had issued a proforma invoice / delivery challan  No.030 and  handover  the  said T.V.  to the complainant .  The said T.V.  had one year warranty  also from the date of purchase.   While matter stood  thus since the date of purchase  of  the said T.V. from the respondent No.1, it is not displaying  properly  and giving defective  service .  The complainant had given several complaints  to Respondent No.1  with regard to the defects in T.V.  The respondent NO.1 assured that they will send the technician to repair the said defects but he failed to send technician.  Thereafter the complainant and her family members had made several visits to the respondent No.1’s shop but no use.  Finally the respondent No.1 referred the said defects of T.V. set to the respondent No.2 who is the authorized service center.  Then the respondent No.2   had directed to the complainant to handover the said T.V. sent to him .  Accordingly the complainant handed over the T.V. Set to the respondent No.2  on 5.8.2017 and the respondent received the  said T.V set  and passed the receipt   of the same  serial No.111216110293001533, ModelCONTVSNX50FH18X .  The respondent No.2  promised that they will get it repaired within one week and return  back to the complainant.  The complainant  waited nearly  one and half month but the TV set  neither repaired nor replaced.  The complainant further submitted that  the respondent No.1  sold the  defective  T.V.  to the complainant .  The respondent  No.2 had not  repaired the above said T.V.  set  till today.  The said T V set is within the custody of Respondent No.2  during the warranty period .  Vexed with the  attitude  of the respondent  1 & 2  finally the complainant got issued  Legal notice to the  respondent  No.1 & 2  dt. 11.9.2017 demanding to the respondent No.1 & 2  to get repair  the said T.V. and returned to the complainant within seven days  from the date of the receipt of the  legal notice.  The said legal notices are served  to the respondent No.1  and respondent No.2  refused  the same ad returns with postal endorsement  on the  postal cover “ unclaimed”.  The complainant further submits that the respondent No.1 sold the defective T.V. set  and the respondent No.2  had not repaired the same. Such acts  on part of  the respondent amounts to deficiency of service  on part of respondents 1 & 2 .  Hence the  present complaint  for the above said reliefs. 

3)                   The respondent No.1 called absent and the respondent  No.2 appeared  before the Forum but failed to file written version and evidence affidavit .

4)               In the enquiry  stage  the complainant  filed her  evidence affidavit  reiterating  the  material averments  of complaint.  She also   go marked   exhibits A1 to A7 documents  and submitted oral arguments.

5)         Now  the point for consideration is   whether  the  complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed for ?

1) Whetherthere is any deficiencyof serviceon the part of therespondent No.1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant?

2) Whetherthe complainant is entitled any reliefprayed in the complaint?

3)To what relief

6)  Point NO.1 & 2:    It is  the case of the complainant  that since from the  date of purchase of the TV i.e.on 23.12.2016 the said  T.V in question is not display  properly the same was informed  to the respondent No.1 who is an authorized dealer he promised that they will send technician to repair the defects but failed to keep up his promise.    The complainant made several requests and visits the respondent No.1. The said respondent  No.1   referred to  opposite party No.2  who is a authorized service center.  The said opposite party  o.2   directed the complainant to handed over the T.V. in question and after handing over the T.V. in question the opposite party No.2  issued the receipt and promised  the T.V. in question defects will be rectified within a week.  But failed to rectify  the defects still   The T.V. in question  in the custody of opposite party o.2 .  To support  the said contentions the complainant relied upon the documents  Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.

                          We perused  the material placed on record by the complainant.  It  is a fact   born out  from the record under Ex. A original in voice  delivery challan dated 23.12.2016 reveals the fact tat the complainant  purchased SAN SUI “50” Led smart for Rs.42,000/-. Ex.A2 which  original receipt  that the opposite party No.2  received    the T V in question  to rectify the defects under Ex.A2 SlNo.111216110293001533.  From Ex.A2  we come to the conclusion  that  T V  in question was having some display problem with in the warranty period .  It is also  fact born out from the record Ex.A2  the T V  in question is in the  custodian of  opposite party No.2 .  He never   tired  rectify  the defects  as promised by him to the  complaint.  Even after  issuing of legal notice dt. 11.9.20-17 also.  the opposite parties 1 & 2   failed to rectify the defect.  Instead of rectify the defect the opposite party No.2 keeping the T.V. in his custody.  That apart the opposite party No.1 received the legal notice and failed to give any reply and the opposite party No.2 refused to receive the legal notice.  Even after  receiving   the notices from the Hon’ble Forum the opposite party No.1  called absent throughout  entire  proceeding and opposite party No.2  appeared but  failed to file his written version.  The opposite parties neither dispute nor deny the averments of the complainant.

                        In the light of the above discussion we are of the view that the opposite party No.1  having received  the consideration of Rs.42,000/- towards  sale consideration of  T V  in question    under Ex.A1  dated 23.12.2016 within the warranty period only the T V  in question some  display problem.  Hence   the opposite party No.1 sold the defective T V  to the complainant amounts to unfair trade  practice on  part of opposite party No.1 .  The  opposite paprtyNo.2  amounts promised to rectify the defects  of T.V. in question within one week, failed to rectify the defects.  Moreover the said T.C. is in the custody of opposite party No.2  deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.2 .  So we hold that the complainant has established her case under ground  of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as such she is entitled the relief sought for by her both points  answered  accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties  1 & 2.

7)       PointNo.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.1:

           1)  To replace  with a new T.V. i.e. SAN SUI HYUNDAI  50” LED SMART TV            

                 or refund the amount of Rs.42,000/- towards  the cost of the T.V  with

                  interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.12.2016 till its realization to the complainant.

            2. The opposite party No.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-  towards  compensation to the complainant.

            3.    The opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this complaint.

                                       Time for compliance is one month from the date of service of this order. 

.

  MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                 WITNESS EXAMINED

                                                              NIL                                  

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 -  Proforma Invoice/delivery challan  issued by the respondent No.1

Ex.A2 – Copy of receipt. Issued by t he respondent No.2

Ex.A3 – Copy of  the Legal notice dt. 11.9.2017 to the respondents

Ex.A4 & 5 –  Postal receipts

Ex.A6 – Copy of postal acknowledgement

Ex.A7 – Postal returned cover of the respondent No.2.

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:

Nil

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT