By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that on 18/5/2000 he had purchased a Thomson Colour Television from the 1st respondent for Rs.15,900/-. At the time of purchase the Television was in complaint. Later the defect increased and he intimated on 3/1/01 and it was repaired. After that on 10/3/01 and 7/7/01 the Television was repaired for defect by the men of respondents. Rs.225/- had given on 7/7/01 for repair charge. On 20/10/02 the company men came and taken away the Television to their office at Ernakulam and it was informed that the picture tube was in complaint and after some time the picture will also vanished from the Television When this fact was intimated to the respondents they told that the guarantee period was over and they were not willing to repair it again. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. 1st respondent called absent and set exparte.<br /> 3. The counter of 2nd respondent in brief is that the warranty is only for one year and the period was over by 17/5/01. The complainant himself admitted that two complaints which occurred during the warranty period had been rectified by this respondent by free of cost. The allegation that product was defective at the time of sale is absolutely false. After the expiry of warranty period one more minor complaint was reported to this respondent and was rectified. Since this was after the expiry of warranty period an amount of Rs.225/- was charged from the complainant. That was on 11/7/01. The complainant used the Television set for almost three years without any major complaints. The complaint alleged might have caused on account of mishandling of the highly sensitive Television sets. It is true that a complaint was received by this opposite party on 21/10/2002 and the same was attended by the technician of this opposite party. He confirmed the complaint in picture tube and the same was conveyed to the complainant. It is informed to the complainant that an amount of Rs.7000/- is to be paid by complainant to this opposite party to replace the picture tube. The complainant was not amenable to this suggestion and he preferred this complaint to get a new television from same manufacturer or the price of the television. Hence it is clear that the intention of the complainant to get a new television and all the allegations were a pretext for fulfilling this illegal motive. This respondent is still ready and willing to service the television and replace the picture tube on a chargeable basis. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are :<br /> 1)Is there any deficiency in service ?<br /> 2) If so reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2. Commission Report is marked as Exhibit C1.<br /> 6. Point No.1 :According to the complainant at the time of supply also the Television was defective. On 18/5/00 it was purchased and exhibit P1 evidenced it. The first repair as per complaint was on 3/1/2001 and frequent repairs were also there. For the repair of 7/7/01, the respondents charged Rs.225/-. 2nd respondent contended that the product has only one year warranty so cost charged for the repair on 7/7/01. After one year it had became defective and taken to Ernakulam and informed about the defect of picture tube. The 2nd respondent contended that they had rectified the defects occurred within the warranty period and after the warranty period cost free repair is not possible. 2nd respondent also admitted the defects of the Television. Their only defence is regarding the warranty period. Exhibit C1 report shows that at the time of supply the screen was blank. It affirms the case of complainant and reveals that the product was defective at the very beginning. But the Television was purchased in the year 2000 and the inspection by Commissioner was in the year 2007. At this juncture the earlier condition can be find out or not is a question to be considered. Both the parties did not file any objection to the Commission Report. Details of the inspection are not available from the Commission Report. Any how the 2nd respondent also admitted the defects. From Commission Report it can be seen that the product was not working. The records show that there were material defects to the product. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. <br /> <br /> 7. Point No.2 : From the above discussion it is established that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. From the records it is clear that the product was defective at the very beginning. So the petitioner is entitled for a new set. The complainant has incurred expenses for taking out Commission and also for taking the Television to Kalamassery. Hence reasonable cost is necessary. <br /> <br /> 8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to provide a new Television of the same quality by taking the old one. Respondents are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 19th day of August 2008.<br />