Date of filing : 14-01-2015
Date of order : 27-02-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.12/2015
Dated this, the 27th day of February 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Rashid, S/o.Kunhali, R/at Safad Manzil, : Complainant
Mogar, Po.Patla, Kasaragod.
(In Person)
1 Philips India Limited, a company incorporated : Opposite parties
Under the Companies Act 1956 and carrying
On business at Temple towers 5th floor,
New No.672 Chennai- 600035, India
2 Speed Care (Philips Service Center for Sound&
Vision, Television products) Kabans Shopping
Arcade, Nayaks Road, Kasaragod. 671 121
(Ops 1 & 2 Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL,MEMBER
The brief case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Philips LED Television set from Lulu Hyper market Dubai by paying an amount of UAE Dhs 1199/- on 20-11-2013. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the subject matter and opposite party No.2 is the service centre of Philips Company. The same TV has International warranty for 1 year. After about 10 months of usage of the above TV some defects were noticed by the complainant. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 over telephone on 6th October 2014 since no picture was visible on the screen. On 14-10-2014 one mechanic was came to the house of the complainant and promised that they will replace the defective parts or repair the TV. The complainant herein contacted the first opposite party also to redress his complaint. But neither the first opposite party nor the second opposite party shown any interest to replace or repair the TV. The complainant had suffered huge loss and damages. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. Notice to both opposite parties were served on them but they failed to appear before the Forum. Hence the name of the parties were called absent and set exparte.
3. Complainant’s brother was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 were marked. Documents were perused and evidence was analized.
4 The sole question to be answered herein is whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party? While going through the evidence of PW1 his brother was examined who is the authorized agent of the complainant to adduce evidence on behalf of him. The authorization letter produced by PW1 is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the bill produced by PW1 inrespect of the subject matter of the case i.e. Philips LED TV purchased from Lulu Hyper market for an amount of Dhs 1199/- only . The company assured 1 year International warranty for the TV and the same is produced and marked as Ext.A3. But when the complainant started using the TV he noticed from material defects for the TV and on 6-10-2014 he informed about the defects to both opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the complaint register made by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 is the service personal came to the complainant’s house on 14-10-2014 and promised to replace or to repair defective parts of the TV. But thereafter they never attempted either to repair the set or replace it. The opposite parties had gone to the extend of completely ignoring the complainant’s request even after many request. Due to this type of irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties herein, who is a well reputed company through out the world having long standing business empire failed to redress the complaint of PW1in time. The complainant had sustained huge loss and mental agony due to this type of attitude of the opposite parties. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties who received the notice from the Forum. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service from their side. Therefore the complainant is liable to get compensation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which the cost of the LED TV with 18% interest from the date of purchase per annum by taking back the defective LED TV. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation with Rs.3000/- as cost. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.14-01-2015 Copy of Authorization letter.
A2. 20-11-13 Bill issued by LuLu Market
A3.Photographs of Warranty card
A4.Copy of complaint register.
PW1. Rashid.M.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
