BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 240/2007 Filed on 22.11.2007

Dated : 30.12.2008

Complainant:

Dinil.C.K, Charuvila Puthen Veedu, Attoorkonam.

(By adv. Syam Sudha)

Opposite parties:

1. Smart Service Customer Care Centre, MI-Care Electronics, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 023.

    

2. The Managing Director, Videocon Communication Ltd., CSO KKM Stone, Chiteton to, Paithan Road, Aurangabad.

(By adv. Adarsh.S)

This O.P having been heard on 11.12.2008, the Forum on 30.12.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant had purchased a T.V set on 22.10.2005 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for which one year replacement warranty and 7 years replacement on colour picture tube were provided by the 2^nd opposite party. As there were problems in the sound system, it was informed to the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party's mechanic

repaired the same five times and the defects could not be rectified and on 13.09.2006 the said mechanic dismantled the woofer part from the T.V for repair and after repeated requests the same was brought back by them and fixed but that was also a failure. Hence they dismantled the parts and it was taken for repairs on the same day itself. But till now it has not been returned. Hence this complaint for replacement of T.V or refund price of T.V along with compensation and costs.

The opposite parties remain exparte.

The complainant's power of attorney holder has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. He has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

The following issues are raised for consideration:

1. Whether the T.V set supplied is defective?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) to (iii) :- The purchase of one CTV Akai model by the complainant on 22.10.2005 is proved by Ext. P2. The complainant alleges that its sound system became defective during the warranty period itself and though it was repaired several times by the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party, the defects were not rectified. As per the pleadings, the 1^st opposite party has dismantled the parts and woofer parts are still with the 1^st opposite party. The materials on record go to show that the

complainant had informed the opposite parties with regard to the defects in the T.V set. Ext. P3 evidences the fact that the complainant had informed the defects to the manufacturer also. But the opposite parties never cared to contest the case, nor they have filed any version. The complainant has further alleged that the 1^st opposite party has not returned the parts. It is in these circumstances, the complaint has been filed. Ext. P6 corroborates the contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite

party has taken the woofer board and two woofers from the complainant for servicing on 13.10.2006.

The notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties on 31.10.2006 reveals that the T.V was not functioning properly well within the warranty period itself. The documents produced on behalf of the complainant prove that the T.V became defective during warranty period and the failure of the opposite parties in not attending to the repairs properly inspite of various complaints by the complainant is a gross deficiency in service in the manner and nature of performance on the part of the opposite parties resulting loss to the complainant. It was the responsibility of the opposite parties to rectify the defects in time. The complainant has succeeded in proving his complaint. When the opposite parties have not disputed before the Forum that the T.V of the complainant was defective, besides the fact that the defective parts are with the 1^st opposite party, there is no necessity of following the procedure laid

down in Sec. 13(1) of the Act. The fact that the opposite parties have failed to provide proper service has been proved conclusively by the complainant.

In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the T.V set rectified by the 1^st opposite party free of cost within a period of one month failing which the opposite parties shall

jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards costs and compensation.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the T.V in dispute free of cost. If

the above order is not complied within a period of one month, the opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and on acceptance of the said amount, the complainant shall return the T.V in dispute to the opposite parties. The opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th December 2008.

S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

C.C. No. 240/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Chellappan.D

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Customer warranty card with date of purchase 22.10.2005.

P2 - Bill/cash memo No. 16413 dated 22.10.2005 for Rs. 10000/-.

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 31.10.2006.

P4 - Postal receipt dated 08.11.2006.

P5 - Postal acknowledgement card dated 09.11.2006.

P6 - Letter dated 13.10.2006.

P7 - Copy of letter dated 10.10.2006.

P8 - Postal acknowledgement card dated 14.10.2006.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT