BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. P. SUDHIR                                :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                   :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                            :         MEMBER

                                              C.C.No: 198/2013     Filed on  21/05/2013

                                            Dated:  30..04..2015

Complainant:

Sudeep Kumar, S/o Ramachandran Nair, Lekshmi Nilayam, Menamkulam, Chittattumukku-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

         (By Adv. R. Ram Mohan)

Opposite parties:

1. Philips Electronics, PE Electronics Ltd., Autocars Compound, Adalath Road, Aurangabad – 431 005, represented by its Managing Director.

2. Rani, Dependo Industries, Kazhakkuttom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 082.

3. Shibu . V. Kumar, Vijay Electronics, Philips Assurance, Pavithram, TC. 12/4(1), Vanchiyoor-P.O., Thekkummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

This C.C having been heard on 17..04..2015, the Forum on 30..04..2015  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

         1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of Philips Television sets, 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party. Complainant herein purchased 32” LED TV from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by 1^st opposite party. He choose this brand placing reliance on the false assurances and representations made by the opposite parties with respect to the quality and service offered by the 1^st opposite party. While so on 07/11/2012, that is, within three months of its purchase it became non-working. So it was taken to the 3^rd opposite party for getting it repaired. They asked for a week’s time for repair, but till now nothing happened and LED set still remains with 3^rd opposite party. So complainant on 10/04/2013 issued a lawyer’s notice for getting his complaint redressed, there also nothing happened and so he approached this Forum for getting direction to rectify the fault in the LED TV or to replace or to refund the purchase price of LED TV.

         2. Notice was sent from this Forum to all the opposite parties.

         3. 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties refused to accept the notice and the 1^st opposite party though accepted the notice neither filed any version or contested the matter. So the opposite parties was set exparte.

         The points raised for consideration:

         (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

         (ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any relief as claimed?

         4. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with 5 documents. The bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party proving the purchase of LED set is marked as Ext. P1. The receipts issued by the 3^rd opposite party marked as Ext. P2. Copy of Advocate notice dated 10/04/2013 is  marked as Ext. P3 and the postal receipts and acknowledgement cards are marked as Exts. P4 & P5.

         5. Points: Complainant approached this Forum with an allegation that the LED TV purchased by him got repaired within three months of its purchase. To prove the same the job sheet is also produced which is marked as Ext. P2. Since the LED TV in dispute is with the 3^rd opposite party, complainant is not in a position to establish his allegation through an expert opinion as stipulated by Consumer Protection Act. In Ext. P2 in the complaints column 3^rd opposite party reported that it is dead. Product is within the warranty period. He had purchased the same for an amount of Rs. 28,990/-. Since the purpose for which the LED TV is brought is not served to the complainant. So the complainant is eligible to get back the purchase price given for purchasing the same. We find it just and proper to order refund since we do not know whether the complainant purchased another TV within this period.

         In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 28,990/- with 9% interest from 14/11/2012 the date on which complainant entrusted the TV with 3^rd opposite party till the date of realization. Rs. 5,000/- is ordered as cost. Time for compliance 2 months on receipt of this order, failing which Rs. 28,990/- will carry interest @ 12% from 14/11/2012 till the date of realization.

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 30^th day of  April, 2015.                      

                                  Sd/-L IJU B. NAIR       :         MEMBER

   Sd/- P. SUDHIR           :         PRESIDENT

   Sd/- R. SATHI              :         MEMBER

  Ad.                       

C.C.No: 198/2013

APPENDIX

I.  Complainant’s witness           :         NI L

II. Complainant’s documents:

P1      :  Copy of invoice No. 987 dated 23/08/2012 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

P2      :  Copy of receipt dated 14/11/2012 issued by the 3^rd opposite party

P3      :  Copy of Advocate notice dated 10/04/2013

P4      :  Postal receipts

P5      :  Acknowledgement cards

III. Opposite parties’ witness               :         N I L

IV.  Opposite parties’ documents         :         N I L

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

Ad.