BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 26/2010 Filed on 27.01.2010

Dated : 15.03.2011

Complainant:

V. Ajin Prasad residing at T.C 40/423, TPSRA 139, 3^rd Puthen Street, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. R. Lekshmana Iyer)

Opposite parties:

1. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri (E),Mumbai-400 093.

    

2. EC Components & Systems, Puthen Bunglow, T.C IV/2536, East Pattom, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

This O.P having been heard on 05.03.2011, the Forum on 15.03.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: The complainant was offered with a Philips LCD Multimedia Projector Clear XG1(LC 4745), True XGA Resolution, 2600 ANSI Lumens Brightness with all standard accessories by the 2^nd opposite party for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- which is the product of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is a person who is engaged in the production of short film and documentaries and the same constitutes his sole source of income. As such the complainant was in necessity of the said product, i,e; Multimedia Projector and hence he decided to purchase the product detailed above from the 2^nd opposite party for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The complainant has purchased the said LCD Projector believing the assurance that the said product would maintain high quality and standard through various advertisements published and exhibited by the opposite parties in different media. Moreover three year replacement warranty was given by the opposite parties to the complainant for the said product. But the said product became faulty in the year 2005 itself and the 2^nd opposite party replaced various items/components of the projector so as to make the projector a usable one. It is submitted that to the utter surprise and shock to the complainant the projector became faulty in the year 2007, i.e; on 13.11.2007 and as a result on even date the same was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party for necessary action. The damage happened within the warranty period. Thereafter, the service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party had informed the complainant that the LCD Projector was damaged due to the failure of various parts and the same are not repairable and it was also told to the complainant that the defects in the projector were due to the manufacturing defect. As a result of the same the complainant was promised to get a replacement with a brand new LCD projector of the same make and value by the opposite parties and as such the complainant was expecting necessary action from the opposite parties. But to the shock and dismay to the complainant no action was forthcoming from the opposite parties as promised. The 2^nd opposite party has delivered an unmerchantable product and thereby the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The aforesaid illegal acts of the opposite parties have caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant for which also the opposite parties are liable to compensate. The said projector is still in the custody of the 2^nd opposite party.

Opposite parties in spite of acceptance of notice from the Forum never appeared before us nor they have filed their version. Hence they remain ex-parte.

The complainant, PW1, has filed his affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P9 series on his part.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has been supplied with a defective projector as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) to (iii):- As per Ext. P1 series it could be seen that the 2^nd opposite party has received a total amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the complainant towards purchase of LCD Projector. The delivery note which has been marked as Ext. P3 reveals that the complainant has been delivered with one Philips LCD Multimedia Projector. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had assured that the said product would maintain high quality and standard, but the same became defective in the year 2005 itself. The complainant further alleges that the 2^nd opposite party had replaced various items/components of the projector in order to make it usable and he had brought to the notice of the opposite parties that it was too early period for such a product to become faulty for which the opposite parties had promised that they have changed all the necessary components and assured its smooth and proper functioning. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the projector became defective again in the year 2007 which according to the complainant is within the warranty period. According to the complainant the 2^nd opposite party had informed him that the defects in the projector were due to the manufacturing defect. As per Ext. P4 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party it could be seen that the 2^nd opposite party has admitted that the drive board of the LCD Multimedia Projector is defective and furthermore the 2^nd opposite party has asked the 1^st opposite party either to repair the drive board or obtain a new drive board for rectifying the defect of the projector. Furthermore as per Ext. P5 the 2^nd opposite party has sent a communication to the 1^st opposite party wherein the complaint of Philips LCD Projector of the complainant has been mentioned. In Ext. P5 the 2^nd opposite party has stated that “As you were convinced projector was in warranty period you changed one board and two more boards were required for setting the projector”. From Ext. P4 & P5 the defects of the LCD Multimedia Projector has been admitted by the opposite parties. Since the opposite parties have not turned up to challenge Ext. P4 or Ext. P5 the contents mentioned in those documents remain unchallenged. In the above circumstance we have no hesitation to disbelieve the pleadings in the complaint and the allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that the said LCD Projector is still with the 2^nd opposite party. In the above circumstance, the procedure mentioned in Sec. 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act need not be followed. From the above discussions we find that the act of the opposite parties in selling substandard equipment worth Rs. 1,10,000/- definitely amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings he had to undergo for not using the equipment which is the sole source of income.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall replace the defective projector with a defect free new one within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order or in the alternative shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- with 9% interest from the date of receipt of the order till realization. Opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of March 2011.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 26/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - V. Ajin Prasad

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipts Nos. 1547 & 155 5 dated 22.11.2004 and

30.11.2004.

P2 - Copy of invoice dated 30.11.2004 issued to the

complainant by the 2^nd opposite party.

P3 - Copy of delivery note dated 30.11.2004 issued in the

name of the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party.

P4 - Copy of letter dated 27.11.2008 issued by 3^rd opposite

party to the 1^st opposite party. 

P5 - Copy of letter dated 28.08.2009 issued by the 2^nd opposite

party to the 1^st opposite party.

P6 - Copy of letter dated 09.10.2009 issued by the complainant

to 1^st opposite party. 

P7 - Copy of lawyer's notice dated 16.11.2009.

P8 - Postal receipts (2 Nos.)

P9 - Acknowledgement cards ( 2 Nos.)

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT