Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/05/2014

L.Anantharaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shreeraj Electronics, - Opp.Party(s)

C.Russel Raj

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 26.12.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 03.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.05/2014

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

L. Anantharaj,

S/o. Mr. Laxmanan,

No.H-10, G4, Sea Shadow Apartments,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                     

 

     ..Versus..

 

1. The Proprietor,

Shreeraj Electronics,

No.3 A, Adyar Bridge Road,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.

 

2. Mr. Senthil,

Shreeraj Electronics,

No.3A, Adyar Bridge Road,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.

 

3. Mr. Anand,

Service Manager-Panasonic,

Opposite JCT Ground Chola,

No.88, 6^th Floor,

Spic Building Annex,

Mount Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

4.  The Proprietor,

Shahs Electronics,

Old No.28A, New No.59,

1^st Main Road,

Gandhi Nagar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                     :  M/s. C. Russel Raj

Counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 :  Exparte

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party            :  M/s. K. Jayaraman & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace a new 42 inches T.V. of the complaint said TV and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased 42 inches Panasonic TV from Shahs Electronics, Adayar in the month of November 2010.  The complainant submits that while the said TV was functioning properly, the ON/OFF SWITCH had some defects and was not functioning properly.  The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party for repairing the said defects.  The 2^nd opposite party sent a mechanic one Mr. Senthil who has taken the said TV on 12.04.2014 to their office at Adayar along with original documents.  The complainant submits that the TV was given for repair within the warranty period.  The complainant submits that evenafter repeated requests and demands till 01.10.2013, the opposite parties has not repaired the TV and returned to the complainant.   Hence, notice dated:01.10.2013 & 28.10.2013 was sent to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the 3^rd opposite party respectively and the notice sent to the 2^nd opposite party was returned.   The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party gave an estimate for Rs.55,128/- for repairing the TV after inordinate delay of 1½ years.    The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of the notice the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 have neither chosen to appear before this Forum and hence the opposite parties 1,2 & 4 was set Exparte for non appearance.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant had registered a complaint through the Customer Care on 12.04.2012.   The complaint is that the TV set is not working.  Immediately, the complaint was registered and Job Card was issued.  The 3^rd opposite party states that the Service Engineer of the 3^rd opposite party noticed that the A-Board was damaged.  For due repair on free of cost, the Service Engineer demanded Warranty Card and Invoice of purchase.  The 3^rd opposite party states that on the request of the complainant, the Service Engineer estimated the cost of repair with materials like A-Board and claimed Rs.55,128/-.   The complainant has not come forward to pay the said estimated amount and not turned up to take back the said TV.  Hence the 3^rd opposite party sent the TV to the complainant’s house through a delivery challan on 26.10.2012 and 20.06.2013, the complainant has not come forward to pay the estimated amount for due repair, failed and neglected to receive the TV which was not repaired.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 are marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the replacement of 42 inches TV as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 remained Exparte.  Both complainant and the 3^rd opposite party filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased 42 inches Panasonic TV from Shahs Electronics, Adayar in the month of November 2010.  The complainant further contended that while the said the TV was functioning properly, the ON/OFF SWITCH had some defects.  The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party for repairing the said defects.  The 2^nd opposite party sent a mechanic one Mr. Senthil who has taken the said TV on 12.04.2014 to their office at Adayar along with original documents.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the TV was given for repair within the warranty period.  But the complainant has not even pleaded and proved on which date, the TV was purchased.   On the other hand, the opposite party pleaded that the TV was purchased 7 years back and has no warranty.  The terms and conditions related to Ex.B6, warranty shows that the complainant has to pay the service charges / repairing charges.  

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that evenafter repeated requests and demands till 01.10.2013, the opposite parties has not repaired the TV and returned to the complainant.  Hence, notice dated:01.10.2013 & 28.10.2013 was sent to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the 3^rd opposite party as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A5 respectively, the returned cover from the 2^nd opposite party is marked as Ex.A2.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party gave an estimate for Rs.55,128/- as per Ex.A7 for repairing the TV after inordinate delay of 1½ years .  The documents 1 to 4 filed by the opposite party are fabricated.   In Ex.B1, the cost of repairing charges is mentioned as Rs.23,900/- and in Ex.B4 the cost of repairing charges is mentioned as Rs.55,128/-.   The cost for repairing the TV is Rs.55,128/-.   But the actual price of the TV is Rs.64,000/- proves the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The complainant is claiming replacement of the TV with compensation.  On a careful perusal of Ex.B1 & Ex.B4, it is very clear that in Ex.B1, there is no signature of the complainant.  But in Ex.B4, the signature of the complainant is obtained.  Further, it is very clear that the opposite party has not produced any document showing the actual cost price of the spare parts including taxes from either retailer or the manufacturer. Mere producing of Ex.B1 & Ex.B4 shall not be taken into consideration against the original, actual cost price of spare parts.

8.     The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the complainant had registered a complaint through the Customer Care on 12.04.2012.   The complaint is that the TV set is not working.  Immediately, the complaint was registered and Ex.B1 Job Card was issued.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 & Ex.B1, Job Cards, it is very clear that Ex.B1 is created after due cherished afterthought because none of the contents found in Ex.A1, Job Card.  Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the Service Engineer of the 3^rd opposite party noticed that the A-Board was damaged.  For due repair on free of cost, the Service Engineer demanded Warranty Card and Invoice of purchase.  But the complainant has not produced any such document.   On the other hand, the complainant pleaded and contended that while taking the TV set for repair the Service Engineer, has taken all the original documents like Invoice, Warranty etc along with the TV set.  The 3^rd opposite party also has not taken any steps to produce / download the duplicate purchase bill, warranty card through online based on the said model number of the TV.  

9.     Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that on the request of the complainant, the Service Engineer estimated the cost of repair with materials like A-Board & P-Board and claimed Rs.55,128/- as per Ex.B4.   The complainant has not come forward to pay the said estimated amount and not turned up to take back the said TV.  Hence the 3^rd opposite party sent the TV to the complainant’s house through a delivery challan on 26.10.2012 and 20.06.2013 as per Ex.B2 & Ex.B3 but the complainant has not come forward to pay the estimated amount for due repair, failed and neglected to receive the TV which was not repaired.  But on a careful perusal of records, admittedly, the TV was taken by the opposite party service agent on 12.04.2012.  The alleged estimate dated:19.10.2013 shows the estimate for replacement of spare parts as per Ex.B4 & Ex.B5 after long period of 6 months.  There is no document to prove that the 3^rd opposite party promptly attended the repair of the TV at the earliest point of time.  Equally, the 3^rd opposite party has not explained the price for the spare parts on par with retailer or manufacturer with tax.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties has not given due service to the TV within a reasonable time.   It is also very clear from the records that the cost price of the spare parts is very high and it exceeds the reasonable value of the TV.  The opposite party also has not given the actual cost price of the spare parts.  Hence the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally shall return the TV after due repair within one month at free of cost with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to return the complaint mentioned TV after due repair within one month at free of cost and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 03^rd day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	12.04.2012	Copy of receipt for repairing T.V
Ex.A2	01.10.2013	Copy of legal notice to the opposite parties 1 & 2
Ex.A3	03.10.2013	Copy of acknowledgement due from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	05.10.2013	Copy of returned cover from the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5	28.10.2013	Copy of legal notice to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A6	30.10.2013	Copy of acknowledgment due from the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A7	22.11.2013	Copy of estimate given by the 1st opposite party

 

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	12.04.2012	Copy of Job NoPI-ASC-10372
Ex.B2	26.10.2012	Copy of Delivery challan
Ex.B3	20.06.2013	Copy of the Delivery challan
Ex.B4	19.10.2013	Copy of Job No. PI-ASC-1311-108360
Ex.B5	22.10.2013	Copy of estimation letter
Ex.B6	12.04.2012	Copy of warranty card

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT