DATE OF FILING : 15.12.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.272/2010
Between
Complainant : Adv:E.Abdul Rahim,
Kizhakkekkunnel House,
Thodupuzha P.O,
Thodupuzha,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : The Manager,
Nelloor Home Shoppe,
Choorappuzha Towers,
Pala Road, Thodupuzha P.O,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant is a practising lawyer in Thodupuzha. On 18.09.2006 he had purchased a T.V from the opposite party's shop at Thodupuzha. At the time of purchasing the T.V, the opposite party offered many facilities in the Television set. After 6 months of purchasing of the television, it showed defects. The manufacturing company is a well known company named "THOSHIBA". The opposite party had given a purchasing bill and 3 year warranty and also offered after sales services. The television set became functionless, immediately the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party's Service Engineer attended the defects in three or four times and also the facilities offered by the opposite party became vanished off. Again the set became functionless on 8.05.2010. The complainant intimated the matter, but the opposite party arrived only on 13.05.2010 and found out that the tuner of the set became defective. The Service Engineer of the opposite party had done the repairing work on 31.05.2010 and received Rs.1,800/- from the complainant. Again the television set became defective on 7.06.2010 and the complainant informed to the opposite party, they attended the repairing work and stated that the defect can be cured only with an expense of Rs.2,800/-. But still now the opposite party has not engaged the work and not cleared the defect of the television set. Now the set became useless. The complainant stated that the repairing and the complaint of the television set was occurred during the warranty period itself. The demand of the complainant to replace the set is not fulfilled. So the complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and he seeks remedy. It is demanded to replace the defective set and also for cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party is exparte in this case. No written version filed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- The complainant filed proof affidavit, examined as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to P3. Ext.P1 is the bill of television set dated 18.09.2006 for Rs.10,900/- issued by the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the warranty card of Television, in which the manufacturing company offered 3 years warranty to the set. Ext.P3 is the cash receipt of the opposite party dated 31.05.2010 in which the opposite party offered an extending warranty period of 6 months. Ext.P1 is the evidence showing the transaction. Exts.P2 and P3 are the evidence of warranty of television set. The manufacturers of disputed television set is a well known company. The set became defective from the very beginning itself, in the petition itself the complainant stated that three or four times the repairing works were done by the Service Engineer of the opposite party. So the opposite party had been realised the defect, but they had not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. As a dealer, the opposite party should inform the company and ready to make necessary arrangements for the full satisfaction of the consumer. To have a good customer relation, it is most important. Here we find that the opposite party's service to the complainant is not satisfactory which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant several times informed the opposite party about the defect of the television set. But the opposite party never cared to cure the same. The T.V is functionless in the guarantee period itself. So we fix Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
Hence the petition is allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace a fresh same branded television set to the complainant within 15 days or to pay Rs.10,900/- to the complainant, which is the cost of television set as per Ext.P1 bill. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2011
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - E.Abdul Rahim
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Bill dated 18.09.2006 for Rs.10,900/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.P2 - Warranty Card issued by the opposite party
Ext.P3 - Temporary Cash Receipt dated 31.05.2010 for Rs.1,800/- issued by
the Service Engineer of the opposite party
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
