Date of filing : 23-11-2010
Date of order : 02-04-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 242/2010
Dated this, the 2nd day of April 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Damodaran.K.
S/o. Ambu Vaidyar,
R/at Pajeermoole of Bekur Village and Post, } Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv.B.Ramakrishna Bhat, Kasaragod)
1. The Authorised Signatory, } Opposite parties
Bakura Audio and Vision, M.G.Road,
Kasaragod. 671 121.
2. The Manaing Director,
MIRC Electronics Ltd, ONIDA House,
G-1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East) Mumbai 400093.
3. Manager, ONIDA Service Centre,
Nayaks Road, Kasaragod.
(Ops 2 & 3. Adv. Kusuma.M. Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that the Onida TV he purchased from the shop of opposite party No.2 on 13-11-2009 became defective during the warranty period of one year. But opposite parties failed to rectify the defects hence he could not watch the TV programmes and thereby caused mental agony.
2. According to opposite party No.1 when complainant informed about the defects of TV, he immediately booked the complaint with Onida Service Centre. Hence there is no deficiency in service upon him.
3. Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed version jointly. According to opposite parties 2 & 3 the defects to the TV was due to lightening and it is not covered under the warranty. The request made by opposite party No.3 to replace the PCB (Print Circuit Board) on concession price was turned down by the complainant. On chargeable basis the cost of PCB is `3500/-.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 & A2 marked. Complainant cross-examined by counsel for opposite parties 2 & 3. Exts B1 & B2 marked on the part of opposite parties 2 & 3.
5. Both sides heard and documents perused.
6. Complainant during cross-examination on his affidavit has denied that the defect of the TV was due to lightening and thunder.
7. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to prove that the defects to the TV occurred due to lightening so as to exclude the service from the warranty. In the absence of such an evidence we are unable to accept the contention that the TV is damage due to lightening. However, during the pendency of the complaint the representative of opposite party No.3 submitted that they are ready to replace the PCB free of cost.
In the light of above submission the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.3 is directed to repair the TV by replacing the PCB free of cost with a cost of `1000/-. The claim for compensation is disallowed. Time for compliance is limited to one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 13-11-09 Cash Bill
A2. Instruction Manual with warranty card.
B1. Customer/Office Copy.
B2.Job Sheet.
PW1. Damodaran.C.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
