Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/1166/2018

Varun Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sansui India Limited(Acquired by Videocon Industries Limited), - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2019

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:11.07.2018

Disposed On:19.09.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

    DATED THIS THE 19^th SEPTEMBER OF 2019

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

                          

 

                      

Complaint No.1166/2018

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Sri.Varun Kumar, Age 34 years, Address: Rukhsar Enclave, Flat No.F2, 1st Main, 5th Cross, T.K Reddy Layout, Banaswadi, Bangalore – 560043.       V/s
OPPOSITE PARTies	1) Sansui India Limited., (Acquired by Videocon Industries Limited.,) Address: Service Cell, 15 Km Stone, Aurangabad – Paithan Road, Village – Chittegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad – 431105, Maharashtra.   2) Videocon Industries Limited., (Registered Office) 14 Km Stone, Aurangabad – Paithan Road, Village – Chittegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad – 431105, Maharashtra.

                                       

 

ORDER

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays to direct the OPs to replace the TV with the new same model or some other good brand TV with similar specification and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss of office time and personal time.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

 

 

Complainant purchased a Sansui LED TV (SMN42QH) with 3 years plus two year extended warranty and V-Guard Stabilizer CRYSTAL from Kundan Electronics, Banaswadi-1516 on 31.03.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.40,400/-.  The complainant submitted that, in the month of October 2017 the said TV started displaying the green lines.  On 23^rd October 2017 complainant called the Sansui Service Center.  The technician of the said service center visited the complainant house and checked the issued.  The said technician informed the complainant that TV is having problem in the panel, it will be checked in service center.  Complainant requested the technician to provide either new panel or new TV.  But till today OPs have not provided replacement of either TV or panel.

Complainant further submitted that the TV stopped working after November 2017.  Complainant contacted OP service center several times through phone, mail and by personal visits.  But service center of OP on one or the other reason dodging the complainant by giving false assurances.  Complainant tried on all the levels with the service center peoples but there was no proper response from the service center.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint.  

 

3. After service of the notice from the Office, the OPs appear before this Forum but failed to file the version.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant has filed his affidavit reproducing what he has stated in his respective complaint. The Complainant has filed written arguments and produced the documents. We have heard the arguments and gone through the oral and documentary evidence scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

 

 

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for?

 

2.  What order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

7. Point No.1: The Complainant firmly stated oath in his affidavit that, the Complainant purchased Sansui LED TV (SMN42QH) with 3 years plus two year extended warranty and V-Guard Stabilizer CRYSTAL from Kundan Electronics, Banaswadi-1516 on 31.03.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.40,400/-.  The complainant alleged that the said TV started giving display problem from October 2017.  The OP service technician visited the place and checked the TV and informed the complainant that there is a problem in the panel.  Complainant contacted the OPs service center several times but there was no response.  The OPs neither repaired TV nor replaced with the new one.  Hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  To substantiate this contention, the Complainant has produced email copies, warranty card & tax invoice.

 

8. On perusal of the tax invoice complainant had purchased the above said TV on 31.03.2016.  Further on perusal of the warranty card it is seen that the above said TV is one year warranty.  Further on perusal of email correspondence it is seen that the above said TV is having problem and the complainant had complained about the problem but the OPs technician visited the complainant place, he has not rectified the problem.  The complainant alleged that he has complained several times but the OPs have not rectified the defect.  

 

9. Further the evidence of the Complainant remained unchallenged. Even after filing of the complaint, the OPs remained absent though the notice served. If at all the OPs have rebutted their claim, the same could have been considered.  In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the only alternative left is to accept the contention of the Complainant. 

 

10. Hence, viewed from any angle as per the records, it clearly goes to show that, the above said TV is having problem but the OPs have not rectified the problem.  Hence it is just and proper to direct the OPs to repair the said TV to the satisfaction of the complainant by collecting necessary charges within 45 from the receipt of the order.  Further OPs are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.  

 

11. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.  

 

2. OPs.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to repair the said TV to the satisfaction of the complainant by collecting necessary charges within 45 from the receipt of the order.  Further OPs are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 19^th day of September 2019)

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Varun Kumar, who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of tax invoice dated 31.03.2016 for Rs.40,400/-.
Ex-A2	Copy of customer warranty card
Ex-A3	Copies of email correspondence.

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

 

Vln*