BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 14th day of March 2018
Filed on : 08/09/2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.602/2015
Between
Arunraj Paul, : Complainant
Manavalan House, (party-in-person)
Naduvattom P.O.,
Naduvattom,
Ernakulam.
And
1. The Manager, : Opposite parties
Sharp business systems (India) ( O.P.1 party-in-person)
Ltd., Amal Complex,
1st floor, C.P. Ummer road,
Kochin Branch, Kochi-682 035.
2. The Proprietor,
Cyril Energy Products,
Chandrapura, Manjapra P.O.,
Ernakulam-683 581.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant Shri. Anurag Paul, purchased a 39” LED colour HD T.V. made by the 1st opposite party M/s. Sharp Business Systems, Kochi on payment of Rs. 38,500/-. Immediately on installation of the TV in the house of the complainant there was problem with its sound . The complainant purchased the TV on the instigation of the Shop owner. The technician came and inspect the TV but did not repair the TV. Despite a lapse of 9 months, the complainant asked the opposite parties either to take back the TV or to refund the purchase amount, after taking back the TV. The next day the opposite party' representative came and got the TV replaced. No warranty card was given and the complainant was not satisfied with the performance of the replaced TV . When this fact was intimated to the shop owner, the complainant was asked to contact the manufacturer . The TV was not getting clarity of sound and therefore the technician of the opposite parties had asked the complainant to get an external home theater speaker system. On 21-07-2015 the complainant has caused to issue a legal notice to the opposite parties, which was not replied. The complainant is therefore seeks refund of the amount paid by him for purchasing the TV and to get a refund for the amount spent by the complainant in repairing the TV with costs of the proceedings.
3.Notices were issued to M/s. Sharp business system and Cyril energy products Chandrapura, Manjapra. Opposite party 1 appeared and filed a version, but 2nd opposite party did not file any version.
4. Version of the 1st opposite party.
5.The complainant purchased the TV on 15-05-2014 as alleged. On 10-09-2014 a complaint was registered by the complainant and one Mr. Sanish was reputed to attend the complaint on 11-09-2014 . He inspected the TV thoroughly and could not find any distortion in sound of the TV. This fact was intimated to the complainant. The complainant again rang up with the same complaint on 25-09-2014 and the technician who attended the complaint and tune the channel with remote control. Again the same complaint was repeated on 01-10-2014 the speaker was got changed even though there was manufacturing defects. Again on 25-11-2014 the opposite party’s technician replaced the main board, only to satisfy the complainant. Again, there was continuous pressure from the complainant for replacing the LED TV, actually there is no defects with the TV and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A6 documents. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
7. Following issues were settled for consideration.
- Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs.
8. Issue No.i The complainant while examine as PW1, had admitted that he did not verify the ISO certification of the TV. The complainant admitted that the TV was once replaced. The complainant did not adduce any expert evidence to show that the TV was defective. The documents produced by the complainant would not prove any manufacturing defects on the TV. No expert evidence is adduced to support the case of the complainant. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
9. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant , the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 14th day of March 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Warranty card
A2 : Retail invoice dt. 15-05-2014
A3 : Notice dt. 21-07-2015
A4 : A.D. card
A5 : Copy of complaint case
No. cc/602/15
A6 : Copy of cash credit bill
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Depositions
PW1 : Arun Raj Paul
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
