D.O.F. 25.04.2011
D.O.O. 30.09.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011.
C.C.No.138/2011
T.M.N. Nambiar,
S/o. Kunhiraman Nambiar,
‘Lakshmi’, Dinesh Road, : Complainant
P.O. Chalad, Kannur - 14
(Rep. by Adv. V.R. Nasar)
1. Nikshan Electronics
Nikshan Areena,
Bank Road, : Opposite parties
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. K.K. Balaram)
2. Smile N Service,
Nr. City Hospital,
Talap, Kannur.
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund the price of the T.V. set and to pay ` 11,500 as compensation and cost.
The brief facts of case of complainant are as follows : Complainant purchased T.V. set on 07.09.2009 for ` 21,300. Within 15 days the set became faulty. Service men repaired the set three times. Since it was not functioning, as per the direction of company set was taken to their service centre. But it was not functioned. Again taken to service centre and repaired. After this repair the set functioned for some days but afterwards disfuncted. The set was taken to the shop of 2nd opposite party and repaired paying a charge of ` 2000. The set became again faulty and 2nd opposite party taken back the set offered to deliver new one but not yet given. Since from the very beginning the set had been out of order. Complainant could not use the set and it was a matter of great mental agony. He has spent ` 1500 for transporting cost and ` 2000 as repair charge. But there was no positive result. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice 1st opposite party appeared and filed version. 2nd opposite party remained absent and subsequently called absent and declared exparte. 1st opposite party contended that complainant has purchased this set and denied other main allegation of complainant. 1st opposite party is only a retailer. At the time of purchasing itself it was made clear that the repair thereafter had to be done by 2nd opposite party. Complainant was given a good quality T.V. 1st opposite party did not carry out any repair. If complainant could not use this T.V. set because of its default and suffered mental pain this opposite party is in no way responsible for it. He had not brought the set to 1st opposite party at any time for repair. 1st opposite party is an unnecessary party. Hence he is not liable in any manner and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
2nd opposite party remained absent throughout. Anyhow new T.V. set was replaced to complainant as told by 1st opposite party during the course of trial. But the matter could not be settled since the opposite party did not pay the cost and compensation. Complainant has no claim against 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party remained absent.
The main issue taken for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and what is the amount for which the complainant is entitled for?
The evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 to A4.
Complainant examined himself and cross examined for opposite parties.
Complainant adduced evidence in tune with his pleadings by means of affidavit. Complainant adduced evidence that he has purchased the T.V. set on 07.09.2009. Ext.A1 proves that set was purchased by the complainant on 7th September, 2009. In the cross examination complainant deposed that the T.V. became faulty within one month of the purchase and service men from the service centre came to his house and repaired this T.V three times but defect could not be cured. He further deposed that thereafter the T.V. was taken to the service centre and returned after one month repairing the same. But the set again became faulty within a period of three months. Thereafter the service person from the service centre came and repaired free of cost complainant further deposed that it was again became faulty and the set was taken by 2nd opposite party for repair at the expense of complainant. But it was repaired and then the service center offered to deliver the new set but they did not give till the filing of the complaint. During the course of trial a new set of T.V. delivered. He has also deposed that 2nd opposite party is liable to give the cost of transport. It is 2nd opposite party who had received ` 2000 as cost for the repair. Ext.A4 is the cash receipt issued by 2nd opposite party. Smile ‘N’ Service which proves that they have received ` 2000 from complainant.
The facts and evidence of the case reveals that the defects of the T.V. set started within few days of purchase. Though it was repaired the defect could not be cured. Taking into account the entire dealing it can b e said that there was manufacturing defect for the set. However, the new T.V. set was delivered to complainant after filing the case and the basic question solved. But it is true that complainant has suffered mental pain and economic loss. Complainant is entitled to be compensated for the loss he has suffered.
Complainant has adduced evidence that 2nd opposite party is liable for the loss that he has suffered. He has no claim against 1st OP. Hence we are of opinion that complainant is entitled for an amount of ` 2,500 as compensation including all the cost. Hence order passed in favour of complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing 2nd opposite party to pay ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order against 2nd opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Invoice dated 07.09.09.
A2. Gatepass dated 10.12.09.
A3. Indo call registration dated 11.12.09.
A4. Cash receipt dated 02.11.10.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
