IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Date of filing : 04/06/2018

Date of order : 24.08.2022

PRESENT:

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member

CC.No.235/2018

Between

COMPLAINANT

Joji Isaac Abraham, S/o.Jolly Isac Kandathil House, XVI/576, Swts Road, Assisipady, Aluva-683 101

(Party-in-person)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1) Pittappillil Agencies Digi Park, Toll Junction, Edappally, Ernakulam, Kerala, Pin-682 024

2) Sharp India Ltd., Gat No.686/4, Koregaon Bhima, Tal-Shirur, Dist- Pune, Pin-412 216.

3) Get Zerve, VI/838 B1, First Floor, Pulukuzhy Building, Seaport Airport Road, Thrikkakara, Near Vallathol Junction, Ernakulam-682 021

(Op 2 rep. by Adv.P.M.Unni Namboodiri, Harikripa Building, 1^st Floor Mathai Manjooran Road, Near High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-18)

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1) A brief history of the complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that he had purchased a LED TV of SHARP company on 22.08.2015 by payment of Rs.32,000/- from the 1^st opposite party. The set had showed complaints continuously after the date of its purchase. It showed complaints 7 times and the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party and they sent their technicians to repair the TV set. The Television again and again gone down and the complainant states that he was given an assurance by the 1^st opposite party that they provided 3 years warranty for the TV set. Unfortunately, the opposite party has not yet given the warranty card to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant approached before the Commission for issuing orders against the opposite parties to repay the amount of Rs. 32,000/- along with repairing charge paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.

2) Notice

Upon notices sent to the opposite parties from this Commission, the 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed their version. There is no representation from the side of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties and they have not filed their version.

3) Version of the 2^nd opposite party

In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, it is stated that the complaint is baseless since the opposite party had properly attended the complaints of the TV set. It is further alleged by the 2^nd opposite party that TV was repaired by the outside party [GET ZERVE] who repaired and collected money from the complainant is not a franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4) Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidences filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A5. No oral evidence from either side. No evidence from the side of the opposite party.

Exbt.A1 goes to show that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.32,000/- to the 1^st opposite party being the cost of LED SHARP 39 INCH TV purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. Exbt.A2 is a cash receipt issued by Sharp/Lloyd customer care centre dated on 21.09.2016. The purpose of which is not mentioned anywhere in the cash receipt. Exbt.A3 is a photocopy in the form of receipt issued to Mr.Joji by Ajesh and Vishnu. Exbt.A4 is a retail invoice for an amount of Rs.295/- and Exbt.A5 is a Collection Receipt issued by GETZERVE.

5) In the absence of any other records, or evidences, and since there is no evidences from the side of the opposite party except version filed by the 2^nd opposite party the points is to be analyzed in the complaint is as follows.

1) Whether the complainant had sustained any loss or deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties?

2) Whether the complainant is liable to get compensation and relief from the side of the opposite parties?

3) Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)	Point No. (1)

	On verification of records, it is clear that the complainant had purchased LED SHARP 39 INCH TV from the 1st opposite party on payment of cost of Rs.32,000/- on 22.08.2015.  As per Exbt.A2 it can be seen that the TV purchased by the complainant had not subjected to service by GETZERVE on 21.09.2016.   Exbt.A2 is only a cash receipt which do not have any relevance regarding any repair or service.  Exbt.A3 also is not seen attested or issued by any of the opposite parties except made in black and white.  The complainant had not made any effort to examine the TV by appointing an Expert through Commission to substantiate that there is an inherent manufacturing defect for the TV.  Further from the evidence produced by the complainant that the first service is presumed to be done only on 21.09.2016 which is after more than a year of the purchase of TV.  Eventhough the above aspects were taken into consideration, the grievance of the complainant that the TV purchased by the complainant had not given proper utility to the complainant at least for a reasonable period has been given priority by the Commission which has been substantiated without doubt by the complainant. We therefore issue the following orders.

O R D E R

1)	The opposite parties shall service the TV of the complainant into a defect 	free condition free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of 	this order failing which the 1st and 2nd opposite parties shall be liable to pay 	Rs.32,000/- being the cost of the TV.

2) 	The amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid by the opposite parties to the 	complainant being the cost of the proceedings. 

3)	No amount of compensation is ordered in this case for deficiency of service 	or unfair trade practice.

Pronounced in the open Commission this the 24^th day of August 2022.

Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/- D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party’s Exhibits NIL

Assistant Registrar