IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                                  Dated this, the 16^th   day of   September  2009

O.P.No.105/2005

P.K.Sunilkumar,

“Rohiuni Nivas’,

Shanthi N agar,                                     Complainant

Thavakkara,Kannur 2.

(Rep. by Adv.S.Venugopal)

1.Proprietor,

  Nikshan Electronics,

  Safire Building, Bank Road,

  Kannur 1.

(Rep. by Adv.K.K.Balaram)

2. The Manager                                                Opposite parties

  M/s.MIRC Electronics Ltd.,

  Onida House, Civil Line road,

  Thrikkakara,

  Ernakulam

O R D E R

Sri.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed undersection12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties either to replace the defective TV set with a brand new one or to refund Rs.19, 990/- the price of the TV set with interest along with a sum of

 Rs.20, 000/- as compensation.

            The case of the complainant is  that he had purchased an Onida CTV 21 KY Thunder model colour TV from opposite party on 3.9.02 as per invoice No.145647 for an amount of Rs.19,990/-  and the purchase was made after availing a loan from Keala state  Financial Enterprises, Kannur branch NO.1. the said purchase was made as per the assurance by the opposite party and having a warranty for 1 year and there was a  special offer for extended warranty of another  4 years from the date of purchase and as per this it has an extended warranty up to 2.8.06. But from the 3 months of its purchase it become defective and was informed to the opposite party and a service man from the opposite party attend the TV and after that repair it  and the same was worked for six months and again the set become malfunctioning and the same was informed to opposite party. But the mechanic Inspected only after repeated request and he informed that the board became defective and it has to be replaced. After 3 months the defect of the TV was cured and functioned. Again on September 2004, the functioning of the set again completely stopped and after the repeated requests a mechanic from opposite party checked and informed that it need thorough inspection and was taken to the service station of the opposite party and thereafter there is no information regarding the TV for 4 months even after the repeated enquiry of the complainant. Then during February 2005, one mechanic brought the TV back by saying that all the defects are cured. But after re-installation it was found that the TV is not in working condition. Even though the TV has an extended warranty up to 2.8.06, the TV was not in working condition. She complainant had issued a lawyer notice, but the opposite party neither replied nor replaced the TV. Hence this complaint.

            On receiving notice from the Forum, the opposite parties appeared through Adv.K.K.Balaram and filed their version. Even though 2^nd opposite party filed version, he remains absent and he was called absent and set exparte.

            The 1st opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the TV on 3.9.02 with warranty for one year. But denied that it has an extended warranty for 4years. They also deny that a mechanic from the 1^st opposite party has repaired the TV set. According to opposite party they are the only dealer of Onida and they have the responsibility only to convey the complaint to the service engineer or the authorized service personal to affect the repair. Regarding this case also they have done all the possible things at the earliest. According to opposite party the TV set was manufactured by M/s.Micro electronics Ltd., 2^nd opposite party. There was no negligence or delay on the side of 1^st opposite party and they forwarded to the concerned service centre under 2^nd opposite party as and when they received the complaint. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            2^nd Opposite party also filed version admitting the purchase and extended period of 3 years warranty. They further stated in the version that they are willing to replace the main printed circuit board of TV with an n additional warranty of 6 months from the date of expiry of the warranty to satisfy the complainant and to dismiss the complaint after accepting the offer

            Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there s any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consist of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            The complainant has produced Ext.A1 to A3 i.e. the purchase invoice, warranty and extended warranty and this clearly shows that the complainant had purchased an Onida TV set on 3.9.02 after availing loan from KSFE with an extended warranty up to 2.8.06. 2^nd opposite party admits through his version that it became defective and 2^nd opposite party is ready to replace the main printed circuit board of the TV with additional warranty of 6 months. The complainant’s averment is that the TV ceased its functioning in 2004 September itself. But the opposite parties are not ready to replace it or repair it properly even though it has a warranty up to 2.8.06. It is true that the complainant had used the TV for two years. So we are of the opinion that both the opposite parties have shown deficiency in their services for which both of them are liable. So they are liable either to repair the TV properly by replacing necessary parts free of cost or to pay Rs.9000/- towards the purchase price of the TV . Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to repair the TV free of cost or to pay Rs.9000/-(Rupees Nine thousand only) towards the purchase price. Apart from this the opposite party is also directed to pay   Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant s at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection act.

                                           Sd/-                          Sd/-                             Sd/-

                                    President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the invoice issued by OP

A2.Customer’s warranty card

A3.Extended warranty6 card issued by OP

A4.copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A5& 6.Postalreceipt and AD

A7.KSFE Hire rent payment book

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur