By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- On 18.06.2011 the complainant purchased a Videocon colour Television. Within one month it showed some irregularities and stopped its functioning. The complainant intimated this to the opposite party No.1. A service person from Videocon Company checked the Television Set and reported that one integrated circuit of the Television is to be replaced and he also informed that within two days he will come with a new integrated circuit. Thereafter several occasions complainant contacted with this service person and the shop owner, but he couldn't receive any positive response from them. While so on 13.10.2011 complainant lodged a complaint with customer care. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the complainant forced to buy a new Samsung Television set on 15.10.2011 for Rs.6,600/-. According to complainant the non repair of the Television within the warranty period was gross negligence and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. So he prays for a direction to refund the price of Videocon Television that was purchased from opposite party No.1 and also Rs.5,000/- towards cost and compensation.
2. Notices sent to both opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 Vakalath filed on 14.03.2012 but no version filed, hence he set ex-parte on 21.05.2012. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed version.
3. Version filed by Opposite party No.2 in brief:- In the version opposite party No.2 stated that the defect occurred in the Television is “due to heavy lightening”. As per their warranty terms and conditions damages caused by natural calamities are not covered by warranty and will be treated as chargeable basis. But in this case they are ready to repair the Television within 7 days on free of cost.
4. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered?.
1. Is there any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- Complainant filed chief affidavit and was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 and A2 documents are marked. Ext.A1 is the Owners Manual of Videocon Television. Ext. A2 is the Bill of the Television that the complainant subsequently purchased. Opposite party No.2 also filed chief affidavit and produced warranty policy, that was already marked as Ext.A1 from the side of complainant. The defect occurred in the Television was admitted by opposite parties, only dispute was regarding the reason for defect. Opposite party No.2 stated that the defect is “due to heavy lightening” but no steps taken by the complainant to find out whether the defect was caused due to lightening or not. The only reliable piece of evidence regarding the cause of defect was service person's report. In this case he himself represented as opposite party No.2. At the time of inspection opposite party No.2 promised that he was ready to repair the Television. In the version also opposite party No.2 admitted this. Thereafter several occasions complainant contacted with the dealer and service person but he couldn't get any result from the part of the opposite parties. Since there was no other option the complainant forced to buy a new Television on 15.10.2011 for Rs.6,600/-. On going through the above circumstances it is clear that the opposite party No.2 failed to perform his promise even after 4 months. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. The point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Even though the complainant had not taken any steps to find out the reason for defect, the opposite parties admitted their readiness to replace the integrated circuit but opposite parties failed to repair the Television even after the completion of 7 months. This caused much loss to complainant. So he filed this complaint on 22.02.2012. Therefore complainant is entitled to get compensation from opposite parties. So opposite party No.2 is directed to refund the price of Television and Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to refund the price of Television that is Rs.6,600/- (Rupees Six Thousand and Six Hundred Only) and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost and compensation to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. If opposite parties failed to obey this Order within 30 days, they are directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum till the full payment. The complainant is directed to return the Videocon Television to the opposite party No.2.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 20th day of June 2013.
Date of Filing:22.02.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. (Proof Affidavit). Biju Kurien. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Owners Manual.
A2. Bill. Dt:15.10.2011.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party.
Nil.
sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
