DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day of August 2011

Present : Smt.Seena.H. President

:Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 28/11/2007

(C.C.No.143/2007)

Kalamandalam Divakarapanikker,

S/o.Late P.Kalyani Amma,

Kavungal, Anugraha,

Mezhathur (PO),

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar)

V/s

1. Nandilath Agencies,

Riyas Complex,

Mele Pattambi,

Palakkad

(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathinchalil)

2. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd.

39/3655, Sahodaran Ayyappan Road,

Ernakulam,

Cochin – 682 016

3. Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala,

2,30/631, Gopika,

Santhi Naga Road,

Thiruvambadi,

Trichur. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.T.R.Babu)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

On 13/6/2003 complainant purchased a Sansui television from the shop of opposite party as the model smart 20 serial no.9330508845. Opposite party is the authorized dealer of Sansui Television. As per the warranty card the period of warranty is 7 years. On 11/10/2007 the television set started complaint and the matter was reported to opposite party. Service Engineer Sunil visited to repair the television set. But he was not satisfied with the warranty card shown by the complainant and he returned without repairing the defect. Complainant approached the dealer several times but they were not gracious enough to hear the complaints. Then the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 2/11/2007 to the opposite party. They sent reply notice stating that it is not their duty to rectify the mistake during the period of the warranty. It is the duty of the company's service center. According to the opposite party there is no responsibility after the sale of product. There is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party bound to repair or replace the television set within the period of warranty. The television set has not been working for the last one month. The complainant suffered physical and mental agony due to the act of opposite party for which they are liable. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to

1. Rectify the complaint or replace the television set and

2. Pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards the physical and mental agony and

3. Cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. All averments stated in the complaint were denied by the 1^st opposite party. The sale of television set is denied by 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party admitted that they are the dealer of Sansui television and the period of warranty is seven years. Further 1^st opposite party stated that the manufacturer of Sansui television is Kitchen Appliances India Ltd., 39/3655, Sahodaran Ayyappan Road, Ernakulam, Cochin – 682016 and the service agent is TEK CARE (India) Private Ltd. Kerala, 2,30/631, Gopika, Santhi Nagar Road, Thiruvambady, Thrissur were the necessary parties. There was any defect in the television, the manufacturer and the service agent repaired. There was no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. Therefore, 1^st opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

As per the contention in version of 1^st opposite party, the complainant impleaded the manufacturer and service agent as supplemental opposite parties 2 and 3. Notice was issued to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. But notice returned. Finally paper publication ordered. Thereafter 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties absent and set exparte. Then 3^rd opposite party filed application to set aside the exparte order. Application allowed. 3^rd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The 3^rd opposite party has no direct knowledge about the defects of the television. The 3^rd opposite party has not received any notice from the complainant and Forum. The 3^rd opposite party has changed the address recently. So the notice was not received by the 3^rd opposite party. As per the warranty conditions, the 3^rd opposite party is ready to repair the television. There was no deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party. So the 3^rd opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint. 2^nd opposite party has not filed version and affidavit.

Complainant and 1^st and 3^rd opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties. Commission Report marked as Ext.C1.

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 entitled to the complainant ?

Issue I & II

The 1^st opposite denied the sale of television. In Ext.A1 the original warranty card shows that 7 year warranty on CTV including picture tube and signed in the place of dealer's signature with seal of 1^st opposite party. The warranty card is in the name of complainant. In Ext.A2 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to 1^st opposite party dated 2/1/2007. The postal receipt and acknowledgment card is also produced alongwith Ext.A2. In Ext.A3 the 1^st opposite party replied that no service engineer had been deputed to the residence of complainant from the showroom of M/s.Nandilath Agencies. Firstly denied the sale of television by the 1^st opposite party in Ext.A3 also. The complainant has not produced the bill of television set and not stated the price of television set. The complainant has purchased the television on 13/6/2003. After 4 years the television set started complaints. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to repair the television. The complainant stated that the service engineer Sunil visited to repair the television and he was not satisfied with the warranty card. In Ext.A1 the warranty card shows 7 years warranty. The 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant has not produced any bill or any document to prove that he has purchased the television from the shop of 1^st opposite party. In Ext.A1 the 1^st opposite party signed with seal in the place of dealer's signature. Further the 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant has not produced the original warranty card. Ext.A1 is the original warranty card produced by the complainant.

The 3^rd opposite party had no knowledge of the complaint of the television. The 3^rd opposite party admitted that they had appeared before the Forum only after paper publication. The 2^nd opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. The expert commissioner filed a report dated 27/6/2011. Commissioner inspected the Sansui Television as serial number 9330508845. The commissioner stated that television was not working due to defect of picture tube. The 1^st opposite party argued that the commissioner was inspected the television after 4 years from the date of complaint. Both parties not filed objection to commission report. Not examined the commissioner. In the present case the 1^st opposite party in the version stated the address of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Then the complainant impleaded the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party. Notice was not served to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party in the address produced by the 1^st opposite party. Finally the complainant filed application to paper publication. I.A. Allowed. The 3^rd opposite party admitted that they appeared after paper publication. The complainant produced the advertisement bill and total amount of paper publication is Rs.13,110/- In the affidavit of complainant stated the cost of paper publication was Rs.13110/- and prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of paper publication also. The 1^st opposite party has denied the sale of television and not given the correct address of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The act opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant approached the opposite parties to repair the television set within the warranty period. But the opposite parties not ready to repair the television. Opposite parties not present before the Forum after receiving the notice. Hence the opposite parties set exparte. Thereafter the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties filed application to set aside the exparte order. I.A.allowed. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties filed version and affidavit. Totally the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties not repaired the television set of complainant within the warranty period. Commissioner noted the defects of the television.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for non repairing of the television. In the result the complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to

1. Replace the picture tube and to repair the television with free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of order.

2. Pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and amount of paper publication

3. Pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant

4. If the opposite parties failed to replace the picture tube and repair the television with free of cost within the ordered period an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of August 2011. Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Smt.Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Customer Warranty Card

Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice sent to opposite party dated 2/11/07

Ext.A3 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 12/11/07

Commissioner Report

Ext.C1 – Commission Report

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

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