Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.71,400/- (cost of television set) and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony besides costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        On 01-04-05 the complainant purchased “SANSUI S14 SUPER EYE” colour television from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.71,400/-.   The said television is having seven years warranty.   The 1^st opposite party on two occasions attended to the problems of the said television set.  Again and again the same problem recurred.   During the 1^st week of October, 2011 the total display was stopped.                     The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties.                    The complainant on 28-10-11 handed over the said television set to the 1^st opposite party for effecting repairs.   Till filing complaint the                   1^st opposite party neither returned the said television set nor repaired it.   The 1^st opposite party is under the obligation to replace the set with a new one and the 2^nd opposite party has to follow of the same as it was purchased from it.   The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party to pursue the matter.   The conduct of opposite parties in not getting the set repaired or replaced amounted to deficiency of service and it caused mental agony to the complainant.  Inspite of notice also the opposite parties did not respond.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The opposite parties remained exparte. 

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of complainant.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of                  service?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
2. To what relief?

6.  POINT No.1:-   The complainant purchased “SANSUI S14 SUPER EYE” colour television set for Rs.71,400/- on 01-04-05 as seen from Ex.A-1 (copy of invoice).   The complainant handedover the colour television set covered by Ex.A-1 to the 1^st opposite party on 28-10-11 as disclosed from Ex.A-3.   The opposite parties 1              and 2 received copy of Ex.A-4 notice (Ex.A-5 and A-6).   Ex.A-2 is copy of warranty and on the reverse of it the terms and condition of warranty were mentioned.   The relevant portion for deciding this case is extracted below for better appreciation:

“SANSUI warrants to the purchaser of this TV set that it is free from defects in material and workmanship.   The product is warranted against manufacturing defects for a period of seven years from the date of purchase as per terms and conditions mentioned here below.   In the event of any complaint, contact our nearest SANSUI service centre.

                1 to 10……………………..

11.   Out of the total warranty of seven years, 1^st year is a comprehensive warranty where visit charges/service charge and component charges will be free of cost.  The remaining six years is non comprehensive warranty. Under non comprehensive warranty, after completion of first year, the visit charge/service charge of the technician/engineer will be free of cost.   However the spare parts cost will have to be borne by the customer with 25% discount on company’s price list.   The price list means the price list issued by the company and which will be applicable/prevailing at the time of providing service.   The warranty card should be completely filled and service station copy dispatched to the nearest service centre within ten days from the date of purchase.   Any changes in address should be notified to the service centre immediately”.

7.     In this case, the complainant regarding function of the set covered by Ex.A-1 is within the warranty period i.e., non comprehensive warranty period.   Ex.A-2 warranty is binding on both the parties.   The opposite parties did not act as per terms mentioned on the reverse of Ex.A-2 within reasonable time as revealed from Ex.A-3 to A-6.   That made the complainant to approach this Forum on 27-03-12.   Not attending to the problems by the opposite parties in respect of television purchased by the complainant under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-1 coupled with Ex.A-3 amounted to deficiency of service.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.

8.     The complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony.   The conduct of the opposite parties in not attending to the grievances of the complainant regarding the said television set during the warranty period might have caused some harassment.  The compensation to be awarded should commensurate with the injury complained off.  Under those circumstances, awarding Rs.2,000/- as damages will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

9.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above finding, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to estimate the cost of repair within two weeks and intimate the same to the complainant in writing under acknowledgment.
2. The complainant is directed to pay the cost of the price of spare parts as mentioned in clause (11) of warranty within two weeks thereafter.
3. The opposite parties are directed to get the colour television set repaired free of cost within a week thereafter after receipt of the amount mentioned above.
4. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs within six weeks from the date of receipt of order.

    Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   NIL

                                                                                          PRESIDENT