Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/333/2014

Chandrkant P Karvekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep By Chairman of Videocon Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P S Sambrekar

01 Jun 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member)

: ORDER :

          The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.Ps. alleging sale of defective T.V. set.

          2) O.Ps. 1 & 3 have appeared through advocate and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. Further the O.Ps. contended that the complainant has used the said T.V. set for his commercial premises and not for domestic purpose and have no locustandi to plead under the act and the allegations are concocted without any iota of truth. The O.Ps. further submitted that complainant had purchased 21” CTV ultra  T.V. product of Videocon from O.p.No.3 and the said company is the reputed company manufacturing electronic goods and home appliances. The O.Ps. denied that they have deliberately refuse to sign and affix stamp and warranty card. The O.Ps. submitted that the cash memo with date of purchase is more sufficient for commencement of warranty period for any product. The O.Ps. contended that T.V. set was completely dead due to frequent power fluctuation and high voltage supply and they have immediately visited and attended the complainants complaint by sending service Engineer on the premises and gave service etc.,

          3) O.P. 2 inspite of service of notice has remained absent. Hence placed exparte.

          4) Complainant filed affidavit and produced certain documents and O.Ps.1 & 3 even after sufficient opportunity granted to file affidavit have not filed their affidavit. Hence affidavit of these O.Ps. taken not filed.

          5) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and O.Ps. 1 & 3 called out absent hence their argument taken as heard and perused the records.

6) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

7) Finding on the point is in Affirmative, for the following reasons.

REASONS

8)  The material on record establish that the complainant has purchased a T.V. set, as narrated in para one of the complaint.

9) Grievance of the complainant is that, the said T.V. set manufactured by the 1^st O.P. sold by the 2^nd O.p. is defective one etc.,

10) To substantiate the allegations that the T.V. set is defective one the complainant has produced the job sheet dated 30/8/2013, 21/11/2013 and 27/12/2013 and upon that an agreement entered in between the complainant and O.P. No.3 for annual maintenance contract and paid Rs.1,500/- for which the complainant has produced the original cash receipts issued by O.P.No.3. the complainant has also produced the warranty card and contended that during the warranty period itself the T.V. was not properly functioning and was to become dead and on number of occasions repair was conducted but even then the said complaint was continued. Hence the complainant issued notice to O.P. Inperson on 4/2/2014 to replace the said T.V. with new one within 7 days. The complainant for the contended that the O.Ps. have miserably fail to discharge their duties and redress his grievances within warranty period and prayed to direct the O.Ps. to pay the price of the T.V. set and also additional sum of Rs.1,500/- and cost and compensation.

11) The O.Ps. on the other hand, O.Ps. 1 & 3 have appeared through advocate and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. Further the O.Ps. contended that the complainant has used the said T.V. set for his commercial purposes and not for domestic purpose and have no locustandi to plead under the act and the allegations are concocted without any iota of truth. The O.Ps. further submitted that complainant had purchased 21” CTV ultra  T.V. product of Videocon from O.p.No.3 and the said company is the reputed company manufacturing electronic goods and home appliances. The O.Ps. denied that they have deliberately refuse to sign and affix stamp on warranty card. The O.Ps. submitted that the cash memo with date of purchase is more sufficient for commencement of warranty period for any product. The O.Ps. contended that T.V. set was completely dead due to frequent power fluctuation and high voltage supply and they have immediately visited and attended the complainant’s complaint by sending service Engineer on the premises and gave service etc.,

12) To prove the case of the complainant the complainant has produced the documents as narrated supra with dates on which we can see that the complaint registered in the job sheet is dead, no pictures, display not clear etc., respectively. On all these days on job sheets even though as per the complainant the O.Ps. have attended and repair the T.V. but as the trouble continued the complainant has taken steps addressing with the letter to the O.P. to replace the same T.V. The complainant also have paid additional cost of Rs.1,500/- towards annual maintenance charge which can be perused from the cash receipt and also that O.Ps. admits the same. It clearly shows that even though within a warranty period it is a duty of O.Ps. to use free service if agreed upon that the O.P.3 has taken additional amount to maintain and repair the T.V. The agreement copy produced being H.C.P. No. 223722 wherein we can see the dates the 1^st date which is mentioned on the form is the date of purchase that is 25/2/2013, AMC start date 25/2/2014, AMC end date 24/2/2015. According to the agreement the complaint is within time and also by looking to the documents it can be found that the T.V. is within warranty period and the terms and conditions of the overleaf of the agreement and one of the conditions No.4 which says that the contract shall be valid for the period mentioned in the contract form and other conditions such as replacement of defective components and parts shall be companies property etc. The complainant allegations that the O.Ps. have utterly fail to repair the T.V. within a warranty period is proved and so also it is from the document and the facts clearly established that the O.Ps. are at deficiency of service. The O.Ps. after filing objections and affidavit of complainant, have fail to file affidavit on their behalf and no documents are coming forth to show that they have address the grievances of the complainant and there is no defect as alleged by the complainant against them.

13) Consequently, the complainant has proved alleged manufacture defect in T.V. after considering oral and documents evidence. Hence the following order.

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.6,500/- to the complainant the cost of the T.V. as per the Invoice receipt No. 9379 dated 25/2/2013. The complainant shall deposit T.V. set along with all accessories to the forum immediately after passing of this order.

Also O.P.No.3 is directed to pay back Rs.1,500/- to the complainant as per the cash receipt No. 217 taken towards AMC (Annual maintenance Contract).

So also O.Ps. No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and Rs.1,000/- towards the compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of order failing which the O.Ps. as ordered shall pay additional interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of non compliance of the order till realization.

           (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 1^st day of June 2015).

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*