Kerala

Idukki

CC/62/2019

Anoop Shajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Philip Electronics LTD - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 25.3.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.62/2019

Between

Complainant : Anoop Shajan, S/o. Shajan,

Pulickal House,

Vengalloor P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: Anish V.V.)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The General Manager,

Philips Electronics Ltd.,

Ground Floor, Tech Web Centre,

New Link Road, Oshivara,

Mumbai – 400 102.

2. The Manager,

Bismi Appliances Ltd.,

Kalarickal Bazar, Thodupuzha,

Idukki – 685 584.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

Complainant purchased a LED TV on 9/8/2016 manufactured by 1^st opposite party, from the 2^nd opposite party, the authorised dealer of 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.29,000/-. At the time of purchase, 2^nd opposite party issued a warranty card of 1^st opposite party assuring warranty to this product for a period of 5 years from the date of purchase. While so, the above said TV showed defect and the matter was informed to the 2^nd opposite party on 21.8.2018. Thereafter the service engineer of the opposite parties inspected the TV and tried to cure the defects. Since the service engineer failed to cure the defect of the TV, the complainant entrusted it to 2^nd opposite party on 28.10.2018, as they directed. But till date the 2^nd opposite party has not returned the TV, by curing its defects.

 

(cont....2)

- 2 -

The complainant further averred that he purchased the TV on the firm belief that he will get proper after sale service from the opposite parties. Moreover, since the TV is having 5 years warranty, the opposite parties are liable to cure the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant or else to replace it with a new one. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant filed this petition for getting relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party served and the 1^st opposite party returned unserved. It is seen that the notice issued to the opposite party in the correct address which stated in the warranty card and the Forum is of a firm belief that the 1^st opposite party purposefully evaded from the service of the notice. Hence after providing sufficient time for the appearance of both opposite parties, the Forum set them as exparte. Exparte evidence adduced by one Aswathy P. Venu, Power of Attorney holder of the complainant through Power of Attorney, which is marked as Ext.P1. The other document produced by the witness such as original invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated 9.8.2016 and warranty card are marked as Exts.P2 and P3 respectively.

 

Heard the complainant.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for the complainant and had gone through the evidences on record and found that the allegation levelled against the opposite parties are not challenged by them. The Exts.P2 and P3 clearly shows that the complainant purchased the TV from 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party produced warranty for 5 years. It is an admitted fact that the defective TV is not returned by the 2^nd opposite party after curing its defect still. Hence the Forum is of a considered view that failure in providing proper after sale service and withdrawing from assurance of warranty after selling a product is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Being the manufacturer of the product in question and being the authorised dealer of the

(cont....3)

- 3 -

manufacturer, both the opposite parties are answerable in this issues. It is also noted that none of the allegation are challenged by any of opposite party.

 

On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a firm belief that the version of the complainant is sustainable. Hence the complaint allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the LED TV model 40 PFL5059, discussed above or else repay Rs.29000/- being the purchase price of the TV, along with Rs.10000/- as compensation. 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant. The above direction shall comply both the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of July, 2019

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Power of Attorney.

Ext.P2 - original invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated 9.8.2016.

Ext.P3 - warranty card.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT