Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam

CC/359/2012

VIJAY MOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOWNDARYA DIGITAL MALL - Opp.Party(s)

P.SREERANGAM

28 Nov 2014

ORDER

Date of registration     : 01.11.2012

Date of order                          : 28.11.2014

 

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT  CONSUMERS FORUM-I,

VISAKHAPATNAM : AP

 

PRESENT:  Smt K.V.R.Maheswari, B.A., B.L., LL.M.,

 Lady Member & FAC President

 

Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, B.A., LL.M., PGDHR,

Member

Friday the 28th day of November, 2014

Consumer Complaint No:  359/ 2012

Between:    

Mr.Vijay Mohan, S/o late Shyam Mohan, Aged 65 years, 

Flat No.8, Prince Apartments Complex-12, CBM Compound,

Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh                                  …   Complainant

 

And:

 

  1. Sowndarya Digital Mall, D.No.10-50-84, Beside HDFC Bank, Near Hotel Green Park, Waltair Main Road, Visakhapatnam-530 002, rep by the Proprietor of the Refrigerator dealer.

  2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2nd, 3rd & 4th floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sec-43, Old Golf Rd, Gurgaon Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002, rep by the Managing Director.

  3. M/s.Bright Engineers (Authorised Service Centre for Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) situated at D.No.43-3-29/1, Railway New Colony, Sreekanya Theatre Back, 3rd Cross Road, Visakhapatnam-530016, represented by its Authorised Signatory

                                  … Opposite Parties

 

This case is coming for final hearing on 27-11-2014 in the presence of Smt.S.Padmini, Advocate for Complainant and 1st Opposite Party called absent and Set-Exparte and M/s.Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Advocates for Opposite parties 2 & 3 and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

: O R D E R :

(As per Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

  1. The present Complaint is filed against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act on 30.10.2012 and the Complainant requested the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties (a) to apologize in writing for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and his wife (2) to refund Rs.21,500/- paid towards the purchase of the refrigerator (3) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain to the Complainant and his family members (4) to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenditure.

  2. The brief averments are as follows: The 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Samsung Refrigerator, 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of the Samsung refrigerator in Visakhapatnam. The 3rd Opposite Party is the Samsung Refrigerator Servicing Centre in Visakhapatnam. The complainant purchased Samsung Refrigerator from 1st Opposite Party for Rs.21,500/- on 26.01.2009 vide Model No.RT34SVPSI/XTL & Sl.No. is 03184ZAP9003432. As the compressor of the Refrigerator is not working properly and the working condition is stopped all of a sudden.   The complainant has gave Complaint to the Opposite Party and for the 1st time the Compressor of the Refrigerator was changed.  The same problem was occurred to the Refrigerator  for the 2nd time and the Opposite Party has changed the compressor to the Refrigerator.   Like wise with the same problem the compressor was changed for 4 times to the Refrigerator since the date of purchase of the Refrigerator within 3 years. The Job sheets for the 3 occasions when the compressor was changed are : (1) Complaint dt.2.8.2010 for the Complaint No.2086  (2)  Complaint dt.10.06.2011 for the Complaint No.1638  (3) Complaint dt.20.06.2012 for the Complaint No.1262  (4) on 21.6.2012 the Refrigerator gave problem with Compressor Repair and the opposite party No.3 gave a small standby Refrigerator to the complainant on 22.6.2012. 

  3. The complainant having vexed with the problems with Refrigerator, she requested the Opposite Parties to replace the new Refrigerator in place of the defective one. Even after receiving the requests of the Complainant also, the Opposite Parties did not respond and thereby alleging the poor services of the Opposite Parties and the deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Parties, the present complaint is filed and sought for the reliefs as prayed for.

    4.      Notices served to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3.

    5.     The 1st Opposite Party despite receiving the Notice, not appeared before the Forum and thereby  on 1.4.2013 1st Opposite Party has Set- Exparte.   Sri Ch.V.S.N.Murthy, Advocate filed Vakalat for Opposite Parties 2 & 3.

    6.    Sri C.L.D.Sastry employee of the 2nd Opposite Party filed counter on behalf of 2nd Opposite Party and stated as follows: The Opposite Party is admitting the purchase of the refrigerator by the Complainant but the Opposite Party is denying about the price mentioned by the Complainant in the complaint. The compressor of the Refrigerator is having guarantee for 5 years period as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and if at all any problems or repairs are there, the said compressor defective can be changed or repairable. As the complainant is facing problems with the Refrigerator with some repair in compressor, the said Refrigerator was kept with the Opposite Parties and standby Refrigerator has been provided to the Complainant for his services. The complainant is not having right for demand of the replacement of the Refrigerator as he has agreed to receive Rs.8,000/- in place of Old defective Refrigerator by returning the same to the Opposite Parties, as there was full and final settlement underwent between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and the complaint is not maintainable on this aspect. More particularly there is no deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties as the Opposite Parties has rectified the problem of the Refrigerator and intimated the same to the Complainant to take back the same by returning the standby Refrigerator. As he has not come forward to take back his refrigerator by handovering the standby Refrigerator to the Opposite Parties, the complainant cannot allege the Opposite Parties for deficiency of service. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

    7.    The 3rd Opposite Party filed Adoption Memo for treating written version filed by the 2nd Opposite Party on their behalf.

    8.    On perusing the pleadings of the both sides the Forum is framed the following points for consideration:-

    1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties 1 to 3 ;

    2. To what relief.

9.     The Complainant filed his Evidence Affidavit and on his behalf Exs.A1 to A37 were marked. On behalf of Opposite Parties 2 & 3 Sri C.L.D.Sastry, employee of 2nd Opposite Party filed Evidence Affidavit and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. The Complainant submitted her oral arguments and Opposite Parties 2 & 3 submitted written arguments along with oral arguments. Heard both sides.

10.     At the time of arguments, the Complainant’s counsel has filed 4 Case Laws (1) R.P.No.958/2007 of National Commission decided on 29.11.2007 (2) II (2004) CPJ 24 NC between Meera & Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinar Syntex Ltd. decided on 29.01.2004 (3) Tinkle Bells Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan decided on 4.3.2002 (4) FA No.720/2013 decided on 21.03.2014 by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission.    The said 4 Case Laws are related to  the matters,  wherein direction was given to the Sellers and Manufacturers to refund the value  of the Goods along with Compensation.

11.   Point No.1: The present complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 for refund of Rs.21,500/- which was paid towards purchase of the Refrigerator from the 1st Opposite Party vide Ex.A1, dt 26.01.2009. Apart from that Complainant has requested the Forum to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental strain by the Opposite Parties, as the Opposite Parties has delivered the defective Refrigerator and not even responded for the letters for replacing of the same. The complainant also requested the Forum to grant costs for legal expenditure. The Opposite Parties in their counter stated that as they have rectified the problem of the defective compressor and refrigerator they are not liable for the refund of the amount and at the same time as the Complainant has admitted for the full and final settlement of Rs.8,000/- towards reimbursement for full and final settlement for handovering the defective refrigerator to the Opposite Parties, Complainant is not entitled for the refund of the amount except Rs.8,000/-. Ex.A1 is the Invoice dt.26.01.2009 for Rs.21,500/- issued by the 1st Opposite Party for purchasing 340 Lts SMG Samsung Refrigerator vide No.34SVTS1.

12.     As seen from Ex.A33 i.e. letter sent to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant it seems, the Complainant having vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties with regarding to the defective refrigerator got repaired for 4 times, he initially came to an understanding for taking Rs.8,000/- from the Opposite Parties in the place of repaired Refrigerator which was kept with OP No.3.  But observing the entire facts of Ex.A32 it seems the Opposite Parties have insisted for full and final settlement with full work satisfaction of Opposite Parties, the Complainant  refused to sign on the full and final settlement, Full Satisfaction memo and he requested the Opposite Parties to replace the new branded Refrigerator in place of Old defective one or for reimbursement of the refrigerator value of Rs.21,500/-.

13.       Ex.A2 is the warranty card for the Refrigerator. In the said warranty card the comprehensive warranty is 12 months and for the compressor the warranty is 60 months. Apart from that the parts which are not applicable for the warranty period are plastic/glassware/gas charging/consumable lights and tube.

14.   The 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Samsung Refrigerators and the 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of the 2nd Opposite Party situated at Visakhapatnam and 3rd Opposite Party is the Servicing Centre of the 2nd Opposite Party situated at Visakhapatnam. While so after purchase of the Refrigerator on 26.01.2009 vide Ex.A1, the Refrigerator worked with perfect condition till 204 days i.e. upto 23.07.2010. 1st Time the Refrigerator gave problem with the defect in the compressor. Thereby the Complainant has given Complaint No.8414476112 on 23.07.2010 and the Opposite Parties rectified the problem on 2.08.2010 vide Ex.A3 Receipt No.2086 and charged Rs.2,100/- towards (1) Compressor (2) Filter driver (3) Gas charging and for other 3 products including labour charges of Rs.340/- + other charges like travelling allowance etc.

15.    After the 1st Repair was done to the refrigerator on2.8.2010, it  worked properly for 312 days from 2.8.2010 to 10.6.2011 and again there was  Compressor Problem for the Refrigirator on 10.6.2011 and it was replaced vide Ex.A4 Receipt dt.10.6.2011 and charged Rs.1,800/- from the complainant.

16.      After the 2nd repair was done the Refrigerator on 10.6.2011, it worked for 371 days from 10.06.2011 to 15.06.2012 and again there was defect in the compressor for the 3rd time. The complainant gave complaint to the 3rd Opposite Party and the same was rectified by the Opposite Party  Servicemen (M/s.Bright Engineers) on 20.06.2012 vide Ex.A5 Receipt No.1262. At the time of getting repairs done the Opposite Parties collected Rs.2,000/- towards gas charging filter drive and relay and oil.  The repairs done vide Ex.A3, A4, A5 were reflected in Ex.A1, A6 & A13 letters submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.

17.   After the 3rd repair done to the Refrigerator on 20.6.2012,  immediately on 21.6.2012 there was problem with the compressor and it was taken by the Opposite Party No.3 on 22.6.2012 vide Ex.A8.,  by providing a Small Standby Refrigerator to the Complainant.  

18.    Ex.A6, A13, A21 and Ex.A7/Ex.B3 Job Sheets are it reveals that,  there is a Compressor problem in the Refrigerator on 21.06.2012.   Thereafter as per Ex.A29, B4 dt.13.7.2012 and Ex.A8 Dt.23.1.2013 it reveals that the Standby Refrigerator was not working properly and upon the intimation of the Complainant vide Ex.A29,  the opposite Party No.3  took the standby refrigerator to their  Work Shop through one Mr.Sk.Arif.

19.    Ex.A9 is the Receipt No.3464 dt.12.09.2012 which discloses that the complainant has purchased another Panasonic Refrigerator from E-Corpn, Panasonic Branch shop for Rs.23,000/-.  Exs.A6, dt.20.07.2012,  A10 to A37 are the Email correspondences and the letter correspondences done in between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties with regarding to the problems with the Refrigerator and the demands of the Complainant for replacing of the new brand Refrigerator in place of old refrigerator and also for extending period for one year for the old defective refrigerator if possible. The Ex.A28, A15, Ex.A30 and Ex.A32 the opposite parties given Apology to the complainant, for causing inconvenience with regarding the 4 Repairs done to the Refrigirator and for his personal inconvenience.    from Ex.B2 is the Job sheet of the Opposite Parties which is interrelated to the 2nd time compressor repair to the Refrigerator. Ex.B3 is the Job sheet of the Opposite Party dt.22.06.2012 pertaining to the compressor problem of the refrigerator purchased by the complainant vide Ex.A1 i.e. 4th repair for the Refrigerator

20.    Viewing the Ex.A-14 to A-27,  it seems the complainant having fed up with the attitude of the Opposite Parties with regarding to the Service  of the Refrigerator (purchased vide Ex.A1), and finally requested for extended warranty for one year for the repaired refrigerator and one Sri Bharat Kumar intervened in the matter to solve the problem and assured to give extended warranty to the Refrigerator.   But the Extended Warranty has  not been given to the repaired Refrigerator by the opposite parties.

21.   On perusing the Exs.A6, A10 to A37 i.e. the Email correspondences of both sides, it seems the complainant is continuously contacting the Opposite Parties by emails for replacement of the new branded refrigerator in place of the old defective one or to refund the value of the Refrigerator Rs.21,500/- and time and then the Opposite Parties are intentionally dragging the issue on one or other reason.

22.      Hence, in the light of facts and circumstances observing the material record of the both sides more particularly the Ex.A1, A3 to A5 (repairs done to the Refrigerator), A6, A13, A21, A7/B3, A29, B4, A8 dt.23.1.2013 along with the A15, A28, A30, A32 i.e the Apology from the Opposite Parties to the complainant for causing Inconvenience to the complainant.,  we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in delivering the defective Refrigerator to the complainant vide Ex.A1 and  also for not even providing the extended warranty Period for 1yr for the rectified Refrigerator even after repeated requests.    

                                          Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

21.   Point No.2 :   As per the Point No.1 we already came to a conclusion that there is deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Parties  and now following issues has to be decided (i)  Relief No.1 : Regarding the Apology to the Complainant vide Relief No.1 (ii) Relief No.2 :Regarding the Refund of the value of the Refrigerator i.e. the amount Rs.21,500/- to the complainant along with interest (iii) Relief No’’s 3 & 4 : Regarding the granting compensation and costs of legal expences to the complainant. 

(i)  With regard to the issue of the Apology from the Opposite Parties to the complainant :  observing Ex.A15, Exs.A28, A30, A32 the Opposite Parties has given in writing that, “they are very sorry for the inconvenience created to the Complainant with regarding to the repairs done continuously for the refrigerator for 4 times vide Ex.A3, A4, A5 & B3”.

(ii)  With regard to the issue of the Refund of the value of the Refrigerator Rs.21,500/- to the Complainant : The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 stated in the counter that,  the complainant admitted for the Full and Final  Settlement for taking Rs.8.000/- for the repaired Refrigerator from the opposite parties,  So the complainant cannot file the present complaint before this forum.     The same  issue was raised by the opposite parties at the time of the oral Arguments  and the  complainant  denied that fact.   On perusal of the          Ex.A-33  i.e. the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties,  it seems initially the complainant having vexed with the services of the Refrigerator and the opposite parties agreed to come for the settlement for taking Rs.8.000/- in place of the defective refrigerator from the opposite parties.   But as the opposite parties have insisted for the “perfect satisfaction of the services of the refrigerator and the opposite parties”,   the complainant refused to sign on the “satisfaction Certificate” and demanded the opposite parties to refund the value of the Refrigerator Rs.21,500/- along with the repair charges paid to the opposite party No.3 vide Ex.A3 to A5 receipts.    Except the Ex.A1 to A37 and the Ex.B1 to B4 there is no documentary proof that there is full and final settlement for Rs.8,000/- between the Complainant and the opposite parties.   Hence in the absence of the certified Receipt given for the full and final settlement from the complainant,  the opposite parties could not stand on the plea that there is a  Full and Final Settlement in between Complainant and Opposite Parties.

Viewing Ex.A3 to A5 Receipts  and Ex.A1, A6, A13 it reveals that,  for the 1st time refrigerator worked with good condition for 204 days i.e. from 26.01.2009 to 23.07.2010 there upon it was repaired on 2.8.2010  vide Ex.A3.   For 2nd  Time the Refrigerator worked properly for 312 days and gave trouble on 7.6.2011  Thereafter compressor was replaced on 10.6.2011.problem.   For the 3rd after working properly from 10.6.2011 to 20.6.2012  for 371 days,  there was defect in the compressor and it was replaced on 20.6.2012.   Again as seen from the Ex.A6, A13, A21 it shows that there was defect in the Compressor on 21.6.2012 and refrigerator was taken by the opposite party no.3 by arranging a substitute Refrigerator to the complainant, which was taken back by the opposite party employee Sri.Shaik Arif on 23.1.2013 vide Ex.A8 from the complainant’s house to the workshop.  

As seen from the Ex.A9 Receipt dt.12.9.2012 it reveals that having fed up with the Opposite Parties services,  the complainant has purchased another Panosonic Refrigerator from the E-Corpn Panosonic ltd.   

Hence we are of opinion that replacement of the new refrigerator in place of damaged one (vide Ex.A1, which is presently in the custody of the Opposite Parties) is not fair and suggestible as complainant is utilizing the new refrigerator purchased vide Ex.A9. The only equitable remedy available to the complainant is refund of amount.  

As seen from the 1st Repair done to the Refrigerator vide Ex.A3 Receipt dt.2.8.2010,  it seems the Opposite Party No.3 has charged Rs.1660/-  + Rs.340/-  Labour Charges + Rs.100/- TA for the Service Men = Rs.2,100/-.     Though there is warranty period for the Compressor admitted by the Opposite Parties in Ex.A2 Warranty Card,  collecting the charges for the compressor along with other parts,  is  unfair on part of the Opposite Parties.  As the Complainant or the Opposite  Parties  has not given the “Clear Details” about the Charges paid for Compressor and other parts in Ex.A3,  we cannot come to conclusion that how much amount was collected for the replacement of the compressor, as  per the Ex.A3.            

As per the case law I (2014) CPJ 51 Goa between ACCEL Frontline Ltd. Vs. A.G.Kondepaka i.e. the matter with regarding to a defective Mobile phone, wherein it was held that the Mobile set has given trouble for so much time and that too as the Mobile set was used for 7 months and thereafter the problem was started to the Mobile set, Hon’ble Goa State Commission has directed the Appellant to return the 2/3rd price of the Mobile set.

Viewing  the principle of the I (2014) CPJ 51 Goa  ( vide Para-21 supra),  and 4 times  repairs done to the refrigerator. In this matter, the 1st Repair for the Refrigerator started on 23.7.2010 i.e. after 204 days from the date of purchase of Fridge (vide Ex.A1), we opine that the only equitable remedy available to the complainant is refund of 2/3rd price of Rs.21,500/- i.e. Rs.14,333/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.07.2010 (i.e the 1st repair occurred to the Refrigerator reflected in Ex.A3, A6, A13 & A21). So as per our opinion the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.14,333/- from the Opposite Parties along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.07.2010 to till date of realization.

(iii)   With regard to the granting  compensation to the Complainant : Observing the Ex.A1, dt.26.01.2009 along with Ex.A3 to A5, A7/B3, A8 Job sheet along with Exs.A1, A6, A13 & Ex.B4 i.e. the direction of the Opposite Party to take back the defective refrigerator (which was got repaired) along with other documents, we are of conclusive opinion that the Complainant is entitled for compensation for hardship and the mental agony because of the defective Refrigerator. 

As per Section 14(1)(d) of C.P.Act and recent amendment of the C.P.Act for granting primitive damages, if necessary, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the Opposite Parties. In case of 2004(5) SCC 65 Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, it was held that the compensation varies from case to case. As per the case law AIR 2004 SC 448 between Thirumuguran Coop Society Vs Lalitha & Lucknow Development Authority Vs MK Gupta 1994 (I) SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term compensation in legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental and emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Under the Act, the Commissions have been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of the goods or services and compensation and it has to be construed widely, enabling Commissions to determine compensation for the loss or damage suffered by a consumer.

As seen  from Ex.A3  Receipt dt.2.8.2010  to A5, B2, A7/B3, A29, A8 dt.23.1.2013 along with the Ex.A6,A13, A2, A28, A30 and Ex.A9 dt.12.9.2012 (for purchasing the new Refrigerator) along with Sec.14(1)(d) of C.P.Act and the 2 Case Laws (Mentioned supra)  As  the Refrigerator has given trouble for 4 times in 3 years because of defect in the compressor  and though there is warranty for 5 years., viewing the inconvenience and mental torture suffered by the complainant, he is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also the complainant is entitled for the costs of Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenditure.

                                                 Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

22.     The Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,333/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.07.2010 till realization.  The Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs for legal expenditure.

23.    In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.14,333/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.07.2010 till realization. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards costs for legal expenditure. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28th day of November, 2014.

 

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                              District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                     Visakhapatnam

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Ex.A1

26.01.2009

Cash Bill

Original

Ex.A2

26.01.2009

Warranty card

“

Ex.A3

02.08.2010

Cash receipt issued by the OPs

“

Ex.A4

10.06.2011

Cash receipt issued by the OPs

“

Ex.A5

20.06.2012

Cash receipt issued by the OPs

“

Ex.A6

20.07.2012

Letter addressed by me to the OPs with postal receipt

Office copy

Ex.A7

22.06.2012

Delivery/Collection order Customer copy

Original

Ex.A8

23.01.2013

Deliver/Return to Shop customer copy

Original

Ex.A9

12.09.2013

Cash Bill/VAT Invoice of the new Panasonic Fridge

Original

Ex.A10

17.06.2012

E-mail from me to the O.Ps.

Print out

Ex.A11

19.06.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A12

21.06.2012

E-mail from me to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A13

24.06.2012

E-mail from me to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A14

24.06.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A15

26.06.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A16

27.06.2012

E-mail from me to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A17

01.07.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps. & My mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A18

03.07.2012

Reply mail from me to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A19

04.07.2012

Reply mail from me to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A20

07.07.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A21

26.07.2012

Mail from me to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A22

29.07.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A23

13.08.2012

Mail to O.Ps.

“

Ex.A24

16.08.2012

Reply mail by the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A25

17.08.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A26

23.08.2012

Mail from the O.P.

“

Ex.A27

27.08.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A28

28.08.2012

Mail from the O.P.

“

Ex.A29

04.09.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A30

07.09.2012

Mail from the O.P.

“

Ex.A31

08.09.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A32

10.09.2012

Mail from the O.P.

“

Ex.A33

11.09.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A34

12.09.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A35

14.09.2012

Mail from the O.P.

“

Ex.A36

15.09.2012

Mail to the O.Ps.

“

Ex.A37

17.09.2012

Mail from the O.P.

“

 

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

 

Ex.B1

 

Warranty card

Photostat

Ex.B2

22.06.2012

Customer Service Record

Original

Ex.B3

22.06.2012

Delivery/Collection Order

Original

Ex.B4

13.07.2012

Letter addressed to the Complainant

Office copy

 

       Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

President (FAC)                                                                  Member           

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                     Visakhapatnam

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.