BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.122/2010

Dated this the 29^th day of January 2015.

Selvi.Divyabarathi

D/o.Jayabalan

No.18, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Thamizhthai nagar, Vanarapet

Puducherry.

                                                                                    ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. Sun Beem Electronics

    Rep. by its Manager

    M.G. Road,

    Puducherry-605 001.

2. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

    Customer Relation Centre,

    No.159, Eswaran Koil Street,    

    Puducherry.1                                                        ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         :Thiru.V.Rajasekaran, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:Thiru.L.Sathish, Advocate.

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct:

1. The opposite parties to pay Rs.60,000/- towards with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of this complaint till realisation as compensation under section 14(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The opposite parties to pay the cost of this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant submit that she has purchased one ONIDA 29" Colour Television of Oxygen Thunder model bearing serial number 4006723 from the opposite party on 03.05.2007 vide invoice no.784 for a sum of Rs.17,400/- in exchange of a well conditioned black and white Television.  The said television functioned for quite some time i.e. only for six months and subsequently the picture quality became so dull and poor and that a lot of blank patches started to appear on the screen.  When the complainant immediately contacted the first opposite party to report about the defect, wherein the first opposite party directed the complainant to register the complaint before the second opposite party.  In pursuant of the complaint, the second opposite party attended the complaint and rectified it. Despite frequent services attended by the technicians of the second opposite party, the same very defect recurred in the product.  After attending the repair services for number of times, the second opposite party informed the complainant to change the picture tube.   In fact the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.5500/- towards the replacement of picture tube, much to her dismay,  even after the replacement of the picture tube, the complainant gave complaint for the same defect for umpteen times i.e. on 26.06.2009, 30.01.2010, 16.03.2010, 22.05.2010, 14.06.2010 and so on.   She could not update the current events and her aged mother depend upon the television so as to know the weather conditions, news etc and further they could not continue to watch episodes. The complainant and his entire family was subjected to mental agony due to defective product manufactured by the opposite parties.  The complainant issued lawyer notice on 05.07.2010.  Though the said notice was received by the opposite parties, no reply was given by them. Hence this complaint.

3.         The reply version of the second opposite party being adopted by the first opposite party is as follows:

            The opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version.  The complainant has not come with clean hands and has wantonly and deliberately suppressed all the material facts and hence she is not entitled for any equitable remedy before this Forum.  On 09.05.2009 only the complainant lodged a complaint with this opposite party stating that her colour television set was dead.  The technical personnel inspected the television and informed that the picture tube has got fused.  As the warranty expired, the first opposite party informed the complainant to pay the cost of the picture tube.  After several negotiations, the complainant paid only Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.9000/-, the actual cost of the picture tube.   The picture tube was replaced in the television set. Again on 15.06.2010, the complainant has complained about the colour patches.  The same was attended by the technical personnel  and after due set, the set was found to be OK. But, however the complainant was not satisfied and therefore the service personnel took the television to the service centre and there the set was kept for a week's time.   Infact the complainant's father has taken the television set from this opposite party's service centre after a week's time and that too after he was fully satisfied with the performance of the said colour television.  Again on 26.06.2010, the complainant has given another complaint. When the first opposite party's technical personnel visited the complainant's house, the  complainant's parents refused to allow the technician to attend the complaint.   Hence prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4.         To substantiate their case, on the side of the complainant, her father Mr.Jayabalan has been examined as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C5.  On the side of the opposite parties, one Sasikumar, Co-ordinator of the second opposite party's company has been examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5.

5.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the Television purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties is defect one and it caused sufferings and mental agony to the complainant?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.         Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased one ONIDA 29" Oxygen(Thunder) Colour Television from the first opposite party on 03.05.2007 for valid consideration of Rs.17,400.00.  The second opposite party is the authorised service centre for the first opposite party.  The complainant has paid Rs.5500/- on 17.06.2009 vide Ex.C2 to replace the picture tube.  Hence the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.

7.         Point No.2:   

            We have perused the complainant's pleadings, reply version, exhibits and evidence adduced by both the parties.  It is clear that there is no dispute in purchase of television from the first opposite party and submitted for the complaint of dull picture to the second opposite party on 09.05.2009, vide Ex.R2.  The Ex.R2 clearly reveals that the second opposite party has attended the repair on 14.05.2009 and completed on 12.06.2009 with an endorsement of picture tube fault.  The complainant has paid Rs.5500/- for the new picture tube, vide Ex.C2, to the second opposite party.  On 17.06.2009, the second opposite party has replaced the old picture tube and fixed the new picture tube.  Again on 05.06.2010 the complainant handed over the said Television to the second opposite party for colour patches problem vide Ex.R3.  The second opposite party attended the problem and completed the same on 06.06.2010 and the complainant received back the same.  It is evident from Ex.R4 that the said television was again handed over to the second opposite party for rectifying the "colour patches" problem.  The opposite party has attended the problem and kept for a week time with them for monitoring. The complainant got back the said television from the opposite party after recording the satisfaction in Ex.R4. Again on 26.06.2010, the complainant reported the same problem in the said Television vide Ex.R5.  The endorsement made by the opposite party in Ex.R5 shows that the said television persist the same colour patches problem and the complainant did not allow the opposite party for servicing the television again and again for the same problem.

8.         From the pleadings and the documents relied by both the parties, it is admitted that the said television has the warranty for one year from the date of purchase.  The problem in picture tube arisen only on 09.05.2009 after lapse of two years.  Both the opposite parties changed the picture tube for an amount of Rs.5500/-.  Now the same problem is vested with the new picture tube.  The new picture tube also not functioning well and there is a problem of colour patches.  The Exs.R2 to R5 dated 09.05.2009, 05.06.2010, 15.06.2010, 26.06.2010 respectively shows the entry regarding the "colour patches" in the new picture tube of the said television.  The RW.1 also in his cross examination said that "I know the defects of the model Oxygen thunder".  From the above it is clear that the particular model and the picture tube of the said television having recurring defects.  It is evident from the circumstances that the complainant has not enjoyed with the said television.  On contra, she sustained mental injury because of the said defective Television. The purpose for which the television purchased is not served by the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for the claim and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficiency and defect in service. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

9.         Point No.3:

            In view of the above decision arrived in point no.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the old television with a new ONIDA 29" Colour television with equal to the same model.  The complainant is directed to hand over the old television to the opposite parties.  No compensation is ordered to the complainant, being the disputed television is under out of warranty during the complainant entrusted the said Television to the opposite party for first time repair.  The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- for the cost of the proceedings.

Dated at Pondicherry on this the 29^th day of January 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT S WITNESS:  

CW.1             09.01.2012                Jayabalan

OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS: 

RW.1              20.02.2014                Sasikumar

 COMPLAINANT  S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY S EXHIBITS:    

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER