Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum. <br /> 2. The facts of this complaint is as follows:- During the 1st week of November, 2005, complainant informed 1st opposite party to repair his T.V set. The 1st opposite party sent his technician to the complainant’s house and repaired the T.V. After repairs, for testing the T.V, the said technician connected the T.V set with the complainant’s DVD set without disconnecting the cable connection and switched on the DVD set. During that time they heard a sound from the T.V and saw emission of smoke from the T.V. Consequent to this, the T.V was not working. The technician detected the defect and repaired the T.V on 18.11.2005 and collected an amount of Rs.162/- vide bill No.3883 dated 18.11.08. <br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party has also taken the DVD set for repairing on the first day of his visit for repairing T.V set and as it shows certain complaints due to the testing of the T.V. At that time, the 1st opposite party has assured that they would rectify the fault. On.11.11.2005, the 1st opposite party issued work order No.K11001DVD.Thereafter, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party’s service centre several times directly and through phone. As per their instruction, complainant has also purchased an I.C for the DVD and given to them. Thereafter also DVD has not got repaired or returned. Because of the 1st opposite party’s negligent act, the complainant’s DVD set became faulty. Moreover, opposite parties did not return the DVD set after repairing as promised and it is kept by them for the last so many months. Because of this, the complainant has caused mental agony and financial loss. Hence opposite parties are liable to return the DVD set repaired or to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as the price of the set along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The 1st opposite party’s contention is that on 13.10.05 a complaint has been registered at the 1st opposite party’s service centre at Pathanamthitta as comp.No.J13RO2. The 1st opposite party’s Engineer visited the complainant’s residence on 13.11.2007 and took the PCB of T.V set and repaired it on 18.10.2005. The copy of the job sheet dated 13.10.05 and 18.11.05 also produced. <br /> <br /> 5. On report of complainant, the 1st opposite party’s Engineer visited on 11.11.05 and found that the TV set was affected high voltage from the faulty stabilizer, which controls the input supply of the TV. They repaired the TV set on 18.11.05. The Sanyo DVD is also connected with same faulty stebilizer, and it also affected high voltage. A copy of Engineer’s report dated 11.11.05 is also produced. As a customer of BPL, they accepted the DVD for repair in their service centre by work order No.K11001DVD dated 11.11.05. The power supply and the audio amplifier section of the DVD was totally not working. <br /> <br /> 6. Moreover, the DVD was purchased from abroad, the spares used in the DVD was not available in the Indian market. They informed the complainant to take delivery of DVD without repair. But complainant assured to arrange the spare from abroad, but he fails to arrange the same. As the DVD was not a BPL product it is difficult for the 1st opposite party to kept the same in their service centre and are not authorised to repair the Sanyo product manufactured abroad.<br /> <br /> 7. The instant complaint was only to harass the 1st opposite party and the allegations and claims are baseless and cannot be acceptable, and the complainant has not produced any evidence in support of his allegations and claims and liable to be dismissed with special cost.<br /> <br /> 8. The 2nd opposite party filed separate version stating that complainant purchased the TV from BPL Ltd. and the DVD was also not sold by them. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are separate and distinct companies with their own managements. The liabilities of the 1st opposite party’s are not the liabilities of the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 9. The 2nd opposite party named Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in May 2004. It is a joint venture between Sanyo Electric Company Ltd., Japan and BPL distinct corporate entity incorporated under the Companies Act. The 1st opposite party and the Addl. 2nd opposite party are distinct corporate entities. The 2nd opposite party had purchased the colour TV business from BPL Ltd. vide Business Tranfer Agreement dated 14.12.05. However, the liabilities remains to 1st opposite party pertaining to TV sold by them. The 2nd opposite party has no nexus with the said liability. <br /> <br /> 10. On 14.12.05, a business transfer agreement created with 1st opposite party, but that does not shift the liabilities in this case to 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party also highlighted some clauses and terms of agreement stating their non-liability.<br /> <br /> 11. The TV in question was purchased by the complainant from a separate legal entity. Any alleged defect or deficiency in it is necessarily the liability of the 1st opposite party. That cannot be passed or not liable to answer by 2nd opposite party. <br /> <br /> 12. The 2nd opposite party also produced citations in support of their separate entity and separate right and liabilities. In view of the above statement, the 2nd opposite party submitted that they being a distinct entity and cannot be liable for the liability of the 1st opposite party. The TV in question having been purchased from 1st opposite party, who is liable for any defect or deficiency. Likewise, as the DVD in question was not sold by 2nd opposite party, the question of servicing does not arise. In view of the statement, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 13. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief from the Forum?<br /> 3. Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> <br /> 14. The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and documents produced by him have been marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt No.3883 dated 18.11.05 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the DVD acknowledgement receipt dated 11.11.05 issued by the 1st opposite party. From the opposite parties side, no witness was examined and also no documents marked. The opposite parties cross-examined PW1. After the closure of evidence, both sides heard.<br /> <br /> 15. Point No.1:- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and dispute between the parties herein is a consumer dispute. Therefore, the 1st point is answered against the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 16. Point Nos.2 & 3:- On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that the faulty TV set has been repaired and returned to the complainant. Therefore, there is no laches or deficiency in connection with the repairing of TV set.<br /> <br /> 17. The complainant’s case is that 1st opposite party has taken his Sanyo home theatre DVD set for repairing on 11.11.05 and issued Ext.A2 receipt. In spite of several requests the 1st opposite party failed to repair and return the DVD set after repairing caused hardship and mental agony to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 18. The 1st opposite party’s contention is that parts used in the DVD is not available and at the same time the complainant failed to arrange spares. They are ready to deliver the DVD in the same condition as they have received but the complainant has not taken it. But going through the complaint and PW1’s deposition it is seen that complainant purchased spares to them as per 1st opposite party’s direction. In this context, there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s deposition.<br /> <br /> 19. The 1st opposite party has admitted that they have accepted the DVD for repairing at their centre. Being a service centre. it is the duty of the 1st opposite party either to repair the DVD set or to return it. Non-return of DVD set either repaired or otherwise amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the 1st opposite party is liable for the return of DVD set. In the light of the unchallenged contentions raised by the 2nd opposite party, we do not find any deficiency of service from their part. Because of the negligent act of the 1st opposite party, the complainant have sustained mental agony and hardships and hence he entitled to get compensation and cost. <br /> <br /> <br /> 20. In the result, this C.C is allowed, thereby the 1st opposite party is directed to return the DVD set in the same condition in which the 1st opposite party have received it with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest for the awarded amount will follow at 9% per annum till the compliance of this order. <br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of October, 2008.<br /> (Sd/-)<br /> N. Premkumar,<br /> (Member)<br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : K.R. Salleelanath<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:<br /> A1 : Cash receipt No.3883 dated 18.11.2005 for Rs.162/- issued by the 1st opposite party<br /> to the complainant.<br /> A2 : Work order No.K11001 DVD dated 11.11.05.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br />