Kerala

Idukki

CC/215/2018

Nithin George - Complainant(s)

Versus

Philips and the philips shield - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :03/12/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO.215/2018

Between

Complainant : Nithin George, S/o George,

Kunnumkottu House, Nediyasala P.O.,

Thodupuzha Taluk,

Represented by the Authorised person his father

George Varghese, S/o Varghese,

Kunnumkottu House, Nediyasala P.O.,

Thodupuzha Taluk.

(By Adv: Sogi Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : 1. Philips and the Philips Shield,

PE Electronics Limited,

Ground Floor, Techweb Centre,

New Link Road, Oshlwara,

Mumbai – 400 102, Philips Consumer Care,

Number 1860-200-0129.

2 . The Manager,

BISMI APPLIANCES,

Kalarickal Bazar, Thodupuzha – 685 584.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased an LED Television worth Rs.27,000/- and a V.Guard Stabilizer worth Rs.2,300/- from the second opposite party on 01/09/2016. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the products.

 

On 07/10/2018, the Television has been totally damaged. When the complainant approached the second opposite party, the second opposite party registered a complaint about the defect of the Television on 10/10/2018 as CocIDIDI 80118 to the first opposite party. As per the complaint, one television

(Cont.....2)

-2-

mechanic has inspected the TV on 29/10/2018 and he said that the TV has its board complaint. So it is totally damaged. The mechanic collected Rs.250/- as inspection fee from the complainant. On 05/11/2018, the complainant again approached the second opposite party for replacing the Television. But till the date of filing the complaint, opposite parties has not cared to cure the defect of the TV or replacing with a new one.

 

At the time of purchasing, the first opposite party agreed that the TV has high quality and long term use and also with 5 years warranty. The second opposite party had issued the bill and 5 years warranty card to the complainant. As per the warranty, solving any defects of the TV within 5 years period with free of cost by the second opposite party. But opposite parties did not take any steps for curing the defect of the TV till the date. The complainant alleging that it is the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. So this petition filed for seeking relief against the opposite parties.

 

Notice from the Forum is served to the second opposite party and the notice to the first opposite party returned unserved. Complainant took steps to the first opposite party in their address which is stated in the warranty card. Hence the Forum is of a firm belief that the first opposite party intentionally returned the notice by knowing the facts. Opposite parties are not turned up to appear before the Forum to contest the matter. Hence the opposite parties set exparte. Exparte evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Documents were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P4. Ext.P1 is the original bill, Ext.P2 is the warranty card, Ext.P3 is the inspection charge bill and Ext.P4 is the authorisation letter dated 03/11/2018.

 

Heard,

 

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

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have perused the evidence on records. It is an admitted fact that the TV in question is damaged in its warranty period and opposite parties are liable to cure the

(Cont.....3)

-3-

defect to the satisfaction of the complainant or else replace it to a new one or return the purchase amount to the complainant. None of the allegation against the opposite parties are challenged by them.

 

Hence the Forum is of a considered view that, the averments in the complaint is believable and hence complaint allowed. The Forum directs the opposite parties to repay an amount of Rs.29,300/- being the value of the products along with Rs.3000/-, as cost of the complaint, inspection charge Rs.250/- as per Ext.P3 and Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount except the cost shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 -George Varghese

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The original bill

Ext.P2 - The warranty card

Ext.P3 - The inspection charge bill

Ext.P4 - The authorisation letter dated 03/11/2018.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT