IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 29th day of February 2016 Filed on 17.09.2015
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.279/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Vasanthakumar. V.R. 1. QRS., XXVI/1338-CCSB Road
Vijaya Bhavanam Near Iron Bridge
Mankombu P.O., Alappuzha Alappuzha – 688 001
2. QRS Retail Ltd., 25/2424 Raymond
Building, Second Floor, M.G. Road
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001
3. The Manager, Panasonic India Pvt.
Ltd., 54/2720, Joseph & Valentine
Building, Subash Chandra Bose Road
Jawahar Nagar, Cochin – 682 020
(By Adv. Umadevi. M.)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant had purchased an LED TV Model No. TH-L32B60D from the first opposite party along with 3 years warranty. Within a short time of purchase the speaker system became defective and complainant informed the defect to the first opposite party. Accordingly the first opposite party inspected the TV and the speaker system was replaced. But again it became defective and the same was again replaced by the first opposite party. But the said speaker system again became defective. In spite of the repeated requests by the complainant the said problem was not yet solved, hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
After receiving the complaint from the complainant they informed the matter to the service dealer and thereafter the problem was solved. But when the defect occurred again the complainant directly approached the service dealer and they could not rectify the defects, since the complainant was out of station.
3. The additional third opposite party impleaded and the version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint was filed after using the system for a period 2 years and 3 months. There is no defect or deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party. There is no manufacturing defect in the product in question to resolve the issue of the complainant, the technicians of the third opposite party inspected the product and found was the speaker was defected and the same was replaced as per the warranty, but the customer was not satisfied and demanded refund which was denied by the technicians. The third opposite party is still ready to resolve the issue as per the warranty policy.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the T.V. Model No. TH-L32B60D from the first opposite party on 28.9.2013. Ext.A1 shows that the said TV set has warranty for 3 years. Ext.A1 also shows that the complainant purchased the TV set for Rs.22,500/-. The opposite parties filed version admitting that the defect of the speaker system of the TV was rectified by them and further stated that they are willing to rectify the issue as per the warranty policy. During the trial stage opposite parties 1 and 2 undertake that they will repair the TV set and will issue warranty for one year and on the next posting they submitted that they have done all the repairing works demanded by the complainant. But the complainant again submitted that the speaker system of the TV is not working satisfactorily. Even though opposite parties 1 and 2 were informed to repair the TV set they did not repaired it. The repeated effort of the opposite parties 1 and 2 during the warranty period to rectify the defects became unsuccessful and the above facts substantiate the allegation that the TV set supplied to the complainant is suffering from defect. When a person purchases TV from the reputed manufacturer, he was under the reasonable expectation that he would be able to have the effective beneficial use of the article from the date of its purchase. The failure on the part of the opposite parties in rectifying the defect during the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to rectify the defect of the TV set to the satisfaction of the complainant, giving warranty for 6 months within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the value of TV set to the tune of Rs.22,500/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and five hundred only) with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 29th of February, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill for Rs.22,500/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
