BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 25^th day of September 2017

                                                                                      Filed on : 09.06.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                 President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                 Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                      Member.

                        C.C.No. 224/2017

                                               O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The son of the complainant Mr.Eldho who is now residing at Canada had purchased a Sharp LED 32 inch 32LE341 MTV TV from the 2^nd opposite party on 25.10.2014 for Rs. 23,900/-.  One year warranty was provided by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer and additional 2 year extended warranty was also provided by them. The same was gifted to the complainant. After 1½ year, horizontal line of 1 inch width seen over the display screen of the LED TV and the matter was brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party. The technician who attend the TV informed the complainant that the panel board of the LED TV became defective and they advised to take the disputed LED TV to their service centre for replacement of the panel board. Hence it was entrusted with them. Thereafter, no information was received from the opposite parties for a long time. Hence a lawyer notice was issued to the opposite party on 14.03.2016. After receipt of the lawyer notice the TV was returned on 23.03.2017.  But after a few days, the display column aggravated and the TV became totally defunct, thereby the very purpose of the purchased of the TV has been defeated.  The complainant contended that the display failure of the TV is due to the manufacturing defect of the TV supplied to the complainant.  On enquiry it is learnt that the 1^st opposite party had withdrawn the particular model of the TV from the market due to the non-availability of the supply of its parts.  It is contended by the complainant that the failure on the part of the opposite parties to make available the parts of the TV and to rectify the defect of the TV during the warranty period amounted to gross deficiency in service. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the disputed LED TV along with interest and also pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

2)      Despite the service of notice from this Forum the opposite parties opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons.  Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant Exbt. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Heard the Counsel for the complainant.

3)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed LED TV from the opposites?
2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant?

4)      Issue No. (i)

In this case, the complainant’s son  had purchased a sharp LED 32 inch (32 LED 341 MTV) from the 2^nd opposite party on 25.10.2014 at price of Rs. 23,900/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party as evidenced by Exbt. A1 retail invoice.  Exbt. A2 shows that one year warranty and 2 year extended warranty were provided by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer. The disputed LED TV set was purchased by the son of the complainant and he gifted the same to the complainant.

5)      According to the complainant the LED TV set showed some defects within 1½ years from the date of its purchase.  A horizontal line of one inch width was seen over the display screen. Subsequently, the line was spread all over the screen and the TV became defunct. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defect. The technician of the 2^nd opposite party inspected the disputed TV set and informed the complainant that the panel board became defective and advised to take it to their service centre for replacement of the panel board. Believing the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant entrusted the TV set with them.  But, the opposite parties failed to cure the defects and to return the disputed LED TV set to the complainant. At last, the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 14.03.2016.  Exbt. A3 series shows that the complainant had issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 14.03.2017 and the same was despatched on 14.03.2017and acknowledgment card of the Exbt. A3 is also produced with EXbt. A3 series. As per the Exbt A3 legal notice the complainant alleged the very same complaint in this present complaint.  After acceptance of the lawyer notice, the opposite parties returned the TV on 23.03.2017. But after a few days the very same complaint was repeated and now the TV became totally defunct. The display failure of the TV set was due to the manufacturing defect of the TV supplied to the complainant. The complainant could understand that the 1^st opposite party had withdrawn the particular model of the TV from the market due to the non-availability or stoppage of supply of its parts.

6)      The complainant alleged in his complaint that the opposite party had failed to rectify the defect of the disputed LED TV and they did not care to redress the grievances of the complainant.  The above act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The case of the complainant’s stands unchallenged by the opposite party even after accepting the notice from this Forum.  In the absence of any contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and he is entitled to get refund of the price of the disputed LED TV.

7)      The complainant had used the disputed LED TV for a period of 1½ years. We think that a deduction of depreciation of 30% of the value of the LED TV is justifiable in this case.  Therefore, Rs.7170/- being 30% of the value of the LED TV is deducted from value of the LED TV of Rs. 23,900/- and the balance amount of Rs. 16,730/- shall be refunded to the complainant. 

8)      Issue No. (ii)

                   Evidently, the complainant could not use his LED TV for a long period due to the fault on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant approached before this Forum to get redressed his grievance by spending his valuable time and money which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings. We think that compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of Rs. 1000/- are enough to abate the agony of the complainant.

9)      In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs.16,730/- towards the value of the LED TV which amount is after deducting the depreciation of Rs. 7,170/- and the complainant shall return the disputed LED TV to the opposite parties on payment of Rs.16,730/-.
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of September 2017.

                                                               Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                                               Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                               Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                     Forwarded by Order

                                                     Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch        :

By Hand

By Post

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Opposite party’s Exhibits     :         Nil

                         ………………………..