BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 187/2009 Filed on 23.07.2009

Dated : 30.06.2010

Complainant:

Boban, Florence Cottage, Murukkumpuzha, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Sunil Mauryan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd., T.C 25/2181, Thyvila road, Near Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil)

    

2. The Manager, United Electronics, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. The Manager, Sansui Electronics Company Ltd., Kitchen Appliances India Ltd., Electronics Division, C-6, Ashok Steel Compound, B9-c.s.t. Road kalian, Santo cross east, Mumbai-98

This O.P having been heard on 24.06.2010, the Forum on 30.06.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant purchased a Sansui L.C.D Colour television for his own purpose from the 2^nd opposite party on 04.01.2007 for an amount of Rs. 19,990/- along with the company warranty for a period of one year. The very next month of purchase, the product showed bad functioning. The matter was intimated by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party directed to the 1^st opposite party and the product was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party for repair. After two months the 1^st opposite party repaired television set free of cost and handed over the same to the complainant. In October or November 2007, the product again showed bad functioning. The complainant again intimated the matter to 2^nd opposite party and demanded replacement of T.V set on the basis of warranty. But the 2^nd opposite party was not ready to accept the complainant's demand. 2^nd opposite party again compelled and directed the complainant to entrust the T.V set to the 1^st opposite party for checking. The complainant was in routine visit to the shop of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties once in a week for his T.V. The complainant suffered a lot for the non-receipt of T.V. At last T.V was returned after a few months with condition the complainant must pay Rs. 3,900/- as parts charge and repairing charges. The complainant challenged the condition. But the opposite parties did not listen the complainant. Finally the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,900/- as parts charge and repairing charge on 14.01.2008. The charge was illegal because the product was taken by the 1^st opposite party for repair within the period of warranty. Thereafter, the working condition of the TV was not so satisfactory in August 2008. Complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party, but the opposite party said that the warranty period was over, so he couldn't do anything. Finally the 2^nd opposite party directed the complainant to produce the same as he assured for repair free of cost. The complainant acted accordingly. The complainant surrendered the product before the 1^st opposite party on 23.09.2008. Thereafter the complainant started his routine visit to both respondents for the last 10 months for his TV. This time both opposite parties said that delay occurred due to unavailability of LCD trained repairer and spare parts. Till this time the 1^st opposite party has not returned the TV. So the complainant has to arrange extra money for buying another T.V for his needs. So all the opposite parties are liable jointly for the complainant's agony.

Opposite parties remain ex-parte.

The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P9. PW1 has not been cross examined, hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- The retail invoice card dated 04.01.2007 shows the purchase of Sansui LCD TV worth Rs. 19,990/- by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party. According to the complainant, the same became defective during warranty period itself. Ext. P2 customer warranty card provides a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The complainant has pleaded that he was forced to pay Rs. 3,900/- towards repairing charge and cost of the parts on 14.01.2008 as the repair was within the period of warranty. The complainant has pleaded that he had entrusted the T.V to the opposite parties during October-November 2007, and the same was returned only after repeated visit to the shops of opposite parties 1 & 2 and was returned only after few months. We have perused the records. The opposite party has not challenged the same. From the above it can be seen that the tactics of opposite parties in keeping the LCD given for repairs for a long time without any sufficient cause and returning the same to the customer after the expiry of the warranty amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant has pleaded that the LCD again became defective and is now with the opposite parties, not returned yet. The job sheet Ext. P4 dated 23.09.2008 proves that the complaint of the LCD as 'dead', Ext. P5 job sheet shows complaint as “R/C not work”. From the above documents, it can be concluded without any hesitation that a defective LCD has been supplied to the complainant. Moreover the act of the opposite parties in not returning the LCD after repairs definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

From the foregoing discussions we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant has to be compensated.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall refund the price of the T.V Rs. 19,900/- and the repairing charge of Rs. 3,900/- along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9%.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 187/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Boban

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original retail invoice dated 04.01.2007

P2 - Original customer warranty card dated 04.01.2007

P3 - Original temporary cash receipt dated 14.01.2008

P4 - Original job sheet dated 23.09.2008.

P5 - Original job sheet dated 23.09.2008

P6 - Copy of notice dated 07.02.2009.

P7 - Acknowledgement card.

P8 - Acknowledgement card

P9 - Registered letter.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT