BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 88/2017 Filed on 25.02.2017

ORDER DATED: 29.06.2018

Complainant:

B. Philip, Watts Road, Valiyathura, T.C 44/340, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. C.S. Raj Mohan)

Opposite parties:

1. Manager, QRS Retail Ltd., Raymond Building, 2^nd Floor, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002.

This case having been heard on 29.05.2018, the Forum on 29.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that complainant had purchased one Samsung Led 40 Joy Plus Slim LED OA2Y for an amount of Rs. 45,500/- from the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said television.  The 1^st opposite party assured that the said television is of high quality and having warranty for one year.  Complainant purchased the television on 03.06.2016.  The problem of the said television started within 3 months of purchase.  The main problem was that while watching television it got automatically switched off.  Once while watching TV after a spark in the screen, television completely turned off.  When the complainant tried to restart it again there was no display in the screen.  From September onwards complainant and his family members were not in a position to watch television.  The defect was duly informed to the 1^st opposite party.  Service engineer of the 1^st opposite party visited complainant’s house and examined the television.  It was informed that to rectify defects the television shall be opened.  Later, the service engineer informed the complainant that the problem in the television can be rectified by paying an amount of Rs. 30,000/-.  The complainant purchased the said television on 03.06.2016 and within the warranty period the said television became defective.  Demand made by the 1^st opposite party is illegal.  Complainant purchased the said TV on 03.06.2016 relying on the goodwill and name of 2^nd opposite party.  An amount of Rs. 45,500/- was paid by the complainant to purchase the said television.  Within a short span it became defective i.e; within 3 months, it is illegal to extract Rs. 30,000/- for rectifying the defects of the said television.  The mode done by 2^nd opposite party is illegal within a short span, paying 75% of the total purchase amount to rectify the defects shows the inferior quality of the television manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  This is unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties.  Moreover the warranty assured by the 2^nd opposite party is for one year.  The defects of the said TV occurred within the warranty period.  Opposite parties are liable to replace the defective television with a defect free one.  Act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Opposite parties are liable to replace the defective television with a defect free one or in alternative reimburse the amount of Rs. 45,500/- with interest from the date of purchase. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties not turned up and set exparte. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Ext. P1 marked.  Since there is no contra evidence to look into we have no other option but to go with the evidence in hand.  We are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective TV of the complainant with the same model.  If the same model is not available in the market, then opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 45,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 03.06.2016 till realization and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. 

In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective TV of the complainant with the same model.  If the same model is not available in the market, then opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 45,500/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Only)  with interest @ 6% per annum from 03.06.2016 till realization and to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 5,000/- also carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till realization.

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 29^th day of June 2018.      

        Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 88/2017

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of retail invoice dated 03.06.2016 issued by 1^st O.P

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                                Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb