IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2018

Present: Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan Member

Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

CC No. 172/2018 (Filed 20/08/2018) 

Between:

Vinu Mohan,

Anjilimoottil (H)

Parathode P.O.

Parathode – 686 512.                               ……….Complaint

And :

1. Sansui India,                            

M/s. Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd.

15 Km Stone, Aurangabad,

Paithan Road, Chitegaon,

431 105, Maharashtra.

2. Nandilath G-Mart,

PRN Towers, No.XIX/241-1

P.P. Road,

 Pala.                                                                     .........Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

          The case of the complainant is as follows.

On 13/09/2016 the complainant had purchased a Sansui LE TV from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of  Rs.20,990/- after deducting the Onam offer.  He had purchased the TV on the basis of EMI from the Baja Auto Finance Ltd.  The TV became defective on 28/03/2018.  The same day itself the complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party and registered a complaint before them.  In the month of April, the service person visited the complainant’s house and inspected the TV and told that TV has one year warranty and the TV panel having 2 year warranty.  The complainant’s TV having panel complaint and it was to be replaced.  Thereafter the service persons came to the complainant’s house and assured that within one month the panel should be replaced.  Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties several times for rectifying the defects of the TV.  But the opposite parties did not do anything for rectifying the complainant’s TV set.  Hence this complaint.

          The notices were served with opposite parties.  They did not appear either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this Forum.  Hence the opposite parties set exparte.

The complainant filed proof affidavit along with two documents which are marked as Exts. A1 and A2 and he was examined as Pw1.

Heard complainant.

The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties even after accepting the notice from this Forum.  So we have no reasons to dis-believe the sworn proof affidavit, documents and the deposition as Pw1.  Hence we are of the opinion that the case  of the complaint is to be allowed.  All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows.

1. We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,990/- ie. being the price of the TV set and pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.1,500/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant.

Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry10% interest from the date of Order till realization.

     Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of November, 2018.

                                                                             Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President                   Sd/-

Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member                          Sd/-            

Appendix

Witness from the side of complainant

Pw1 – complainant

Documents from the side of complainant

A1 -.  Copy of invoice dtd.13/09/16 issued by 2^nd op.

A2  : Warranty card issued by 1^st op.

                                                                                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                                                                                           Senior Superintendent