By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
 

Brief of the Complaint:- On 26.9.2006 the Complainant purchased a LCD Monitor (VA 712 model) of View Sonic Company from 1^st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.10,650/- as per bill No.81. 1^st Opposite Party issued three year warranty card to the Complainant. After three months one speaker of the monitor became defective. He informed the matter to 1^st Opposite party. At that time 1^st Opposite party directed to produce the monitor before him and he will sent the same to the service centre and it will be returned after one month. He also directed the Complainant if he take the monitor directly to the service centre he can obtain the same immediately after repair. So the Complainant directly produced the L.C.D Monitor and got repaired the L.C.D Monitor. Again in March 2008 the L.C.D Monitor was not working. The complainant produced the L.C.D Monitor at service centre Chemmad. After one month the Complainant got information from service centre over phone that his L.C.D Monitor was repaired. The Complainant took the monitor to his house and found some trouble on the screen of the monitor. Next day he produced the same at Chemmad service centre. From there the Complainant was directed to produce the same at main service centre at Cochin bearing the expense from his pocket. After one month he was informed over phone that the monitor was repaired and sent to Kozhikode. On getting information he went to Kozhikode and obtained the monitor and came back to his house. When he tried to work the monitor it was found that the Adapter Power Code was not attached with the Monitor. That fact was informed to the service centre at Cochin and they sent the same through Courier. Adapter Power Code attached with the L.C.D Monitor and found that the monitor was not working so the Complainant compelled to purchase another L.C.D Monitor to do his routine work.

2. 1^st Opposite Party has sold defective L.C.D Monitor to the Complainant and obtained Rs.10,650/- as its cost. He spent Rs.4,000/- to produce and take back the L.C.D Monitor to the various service centres. He has also spent Rs.100/- for telephoning to the 1^st Opposite Party and other service centres. Hence it is prayed to give direction to Opposite Parties to pay back Rs.10,650/- the cost of the Monitor and Rs.4,000/- which he spent for producing the monitor to the various service centres, telephone charge of Rs.100/- compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the Complainant.

3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed his version. In his version he admitted that the Complainant was purchased on L.C.D Monitor from him. After 4 months of the
Complainant he came to his shop with an oral Complaint to the monitor. There is no service centre at Wayanad. Hence he told that it will be sent to Chemmad and got repaired within 15 days. But the Complainant want to repair it immediately, So he himself took the L.C.D monitor to the service centre at Chemmad. There after the 1^st Opposite party has no information regarding repair at Chemmad and Cochin. He has no information regarding what kind of repairs were done at Chemmad and Cochin. The Complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties ie the service centres at Chemmad and Cochin and the manufacturer. There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st Opposite Party. He has not advised the service through service centre at chemmad. Perfect monitor was sold by this Opposite Party. That is used by the Complainant for 4 months. He directly approached the service centres and distributors for getting service. He has to done it through 1^st Opposite Party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of 1^st Opposite Party.

4. Opposite Party No.2 has appeared and filed version. In the version he admitted that 2^nd Opposite Party is one of the distributors for the computer monitors manufactured by View Sonic Corporation. The Complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. He further submitted that they are not aware of problems faced by the Complainant in the monitor in question. 2^nd Opposite Party is only a distributor for View Sonic products. Any replacement, return or refund should be addressed only to M/S View Sonic, the manufacturer of the monitor or the dealer who sold the monitor or the authorised service stations. In the present case the complainant never approached the distributor. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed against 2^nd Opposite Party with cost.

5.After detailed study both the complaint and version the following points are to considered.

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

2. Relief and cost.

    

6. Point No.1 :- To prove the Complainant's case he has filed his proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A8. In the proof affidavit he stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by 1^st Opposite Party to the complainant at the time of purchase of L.C.D Monitor. Ext.A2 is the limited warranty. Ext.A3 is the copy of the complaint sent by the Complainant to Opposite Party. Ext.A4 is the letter sent by Opposite Party to the Complainant on receiving the above complaint and Ext.A3, Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 are the copies of complaints sent by the Complainant to View Sonic India Ltd. Ext.A7 is the delivery note dated 17.7.2008 and Ext.A8 is the delivery note dated 31.7.2008. Complainant also produced the defective L.C.D Monitor which is marked as MO1. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties produced the proof affidavit. In proof affidavit they stated as stated in the version. MO1 is examined by the Expert Commissioner and filed Commission report which is marked as Ext.C1. The purchase is admitted by 1^st Opposite Party. Ext.A2 shows that MO1 is having warranty. Ext.A3, A5 and A6 shows that the Complainant has sent Complaints to View Sonic. Ext.A4 shows that the complaint were sent by the Complainant and the same is received by View Sonic. Ext.A7, A8 shows that the L.C.D Monitor was repaired. Ext.C1 shows that Video PCB is found defective. Purchase is admitted by 1^st Opposite party. Hence we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties.

7. Point No.2:- Because of the continuous defects of MO1 the complainant was compelled to purchase a new L.C.D Monitor. Hence the Complainant is entitled to get the value of the L.C.D Monitor along with cost and compensation. It is proved that the complainant has taken the L.C.D Monitor twice to Chemmad and once each to Cochin and Calicut. He could not use the Monitor for long time. So he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-.

8. In the result the complaint is allowed and Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,650/- (Rupees Ten thousand Six hundred and fifty only) and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation. Release MO1 to Opposite Parties after paying the amount to the Complainant.

The order is to be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 9% of interest from the date of filing the petition till the amount is paid by Opposite Parties.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27^th August 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Josey. A.S. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. True copy of Tax Invoice. dt:26.09.2006

A2. Copy of Limited Warranty.

A3. Copy of complaint.

A4. Letter.

A5. Copy of complaint.

A6. Copy of complaint.

A7. Copy of Delivery Note.

A8. Delivery Note. dt:31.07.2008.

C1. Commission Report. dt:25.06.2009

MO1. L.C.D. Monitor.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.