BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.52/2016

Dated this the  24^th  day of May 2017

(Date of Institution:  23.12.2016)

Rajesh, son of Raju,                      

Plot No.49, Balaji Nagar Extension

Main Road, Thandukarai, V. Manavely

Pondicherry. 

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. The Authorised Signatory

    M/s Saravana Electronics & Home Appliances

    321, Bharathi Street, Puducherry – 1.    

2. The Authorised Signatory

     Bestronics

     No.8, Mariamman Koil Street

     Iyyanar Koil Street Cutting

     Sithankudi, Pondicherry – 13.

3. The Authorised Signatory

    Micromax House

    No.90B, Sec. 18, Gurgaon (HR), 122015

    Haryana, India.

                                                                    ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A.,  LL.B.,

           MEMBER

Tmt. D. KAVITHA, B.A.,  LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Thiru. William Jerome Vincent,

      Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

(Thiru P. Lakshmitharan, Advocate is

on record for OP3)

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru. A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the first Opposite Party to replace a new Television by receiving the defected Television or to return back the sale price of Rs.16,000/-;  to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, cheating in selling defected piece of television and mental agony and to pay cost of  this complaint. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant purchased a LCD Micromax Colour Television on 17.09.2016 for Rs.16,000/- from the first opposite party vide invoice dated 17.09.2016 with warranty cover of 12 months for all repairs as well as replacing of the parts.   On 19.09.2016 the Mechanic of first opposite party installed the said Television at the house of the complainant but not checked because of non-availability of cable connection.  On 20.09.2016 the complainant effected cable connection for the said television but the picture was not found after switch on the television.  The same was intimated to the first opposite party and through him a complaint was booked before the second opposite party on 22.09.2016 but till date they had not come forward to carry out the said repairs.  The complainant approached directly the first opposite party but no response from them.  The complainant stated that the television set has a warranty period of 12 months from the date of purchase.  During the period of warranty itself, the television set got repaired and the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not care to attend the repairs and such act of opposite parties 1 and 2 not only amounts to deficiency of service, but also cheating for which they are liable to be prosecuted.  The act of the first and second opposite parties caused loss and mental agony to the complainant and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation.  The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said television set and therefore, they are also jointly liable for compensation.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.       The opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

4.       On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C6 were marked through him and one G. Kamalraj was examined as CW2 through him Ex. C7 was marked. 

5.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased one 32" LCD Micromax Colour Television Set from the first opposite party on 17.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- vide Ex.C1 cash invoice dated 17.09.2016.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer.

7.       Point No.2:

          The complainant was examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C6 and one Kamal Raj was examined as CW2 and through him Ex.C7 an advise report was marked.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submitted that he has purchased a 32 inches Micromax Television from the first opposite party on 17.09.2016 by paying a sum of Rs.16,000/- in cash.  The television set carries warranty period of 12 months as per Ex.C5.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 19.09.2016 the men from first opposite party installed the television set in his house, but due to non availability of the cable connection, it was unable to check the function of the Television.    On 20.9.2016 the complainant availed cable connection and switched on the television set, it was not functioning.    The same was informed to the first opposite party, who in turn booked a complaint before second opposite party on 22.09.2016, but, till date they have not come forward to carry out the repairs.   It is further alleged by the complainant that since the first and second opposite parties have not carried out the repairs in the television set, he issued a legal notice  dated 27.09.2016 vide Ex.C2 to the opposite parties.  Ex.C3 is the postal receipts.  The first and second opposite parties received the legal notice and the same was established by Exs.C4 the acknowledgement cards.  The complainant also sent reminder to the third opposite party through E-mail dated 27.10.2016 vide Ex.C6.  Since the opposite parties did not come forward either to carry out the repair or to replace the TV set, even after receipt of legal notice and the E-mail, the complainant filed this complaint seeking to replace the TV set with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him. 

8.       From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 the invoice and the Ex.C5 the warranty card, that the complainant purchased the alleged Television set on 17.09.2016 with warranty of 12 months from first opposite party.       Further, on perusal of Ex.C2 the legal notice and the Ex.C6 the Email sent to the third opposite party, the opposite parties did not care either to replace the TV with new one or to carry out any repair.   From the above, this Forum found that  the purpose for which the television  was purchased by the complainant was not served.  Instead,  it gave mental agony, loss and injuries to the complainant. 

9.       In order to strengthen the case, the complainant examined one Kamalraj as CW2 who is running a service centre in the name and style of M/s G.K. Electronics at Villianur, Puducherry.  The CW2 deposed that the alleged Television set found that the picture not displayed after switch on and also deposed that "I advised the complainant to take back the TV to vendor since it was under warranty".  In this regard, CW2 issued a letter which is marked as Ex.C7.  On perusal of Ex.C7 and the evidence of CW2, and also on perusal of Exs.C1 to C6, it is established by the complainant, that the television purchased by the complainant is not in a good condition.  Moreover, the Opposite Parties, though received summons from this Forum, not come forward to put forth their contentions.  Hence, this Forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite parties.    Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and the Opposite Parties are liable for their negligent Act leading to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice.  

10.     Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and

1. The first opposite party is hereby directed to return back the sale price of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant;
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-         as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
3. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
4. The complainant is hereby directed to return the disputed Television to the first Opposite Party after compliance of this order.

              The Opposite Parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 24^th day of May 2017.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:  

CW.1          04.04.2017           Rajesh           

CW.2          09.05.2017           Kamalraj           

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESSES Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER