CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No.08/11
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2011
Petitioner : Chandy Kunju,
Kochukaithayil
Poovanthurathu PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K. Karjet)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
Evergreen Marketing Associates,
Evergreen Building,
Deepthy Road, Kanjikuzhy,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a L.G T.V and Sun Direct Dish Antina from the opposite party shop on the promise that both T.V and Dish Antina service facilities will be given after sales on 16-12-08. On 16-10-2010 onwards the Dish Antina is not functioning and hence the complainant approached the opposite party for replacing or servicing the Dish Antina. But so far it is not replaced. The complainant several times approached the opposite party and demanded replacement but nothing was done by the opposite party. The complainant sent a lawyer notice dtd 27/10/10 to the opposite party for getting replacement. As the complainant and his wife are aged persons and watching TV is a solace in their boredom. The acts of the opposite party amounts to serious deficiency in service. The complainant assessed Rs.200/- per day as the loss due to the nonperformance of the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement or service of the L.G T.V and Sun Direct Dish Antina, Rs.13,200/- as damages and litigation cost.
Notice was served to the opposite party. But the opposite party was called absent and was set expartee.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts. A1 and A2.
Point No.1
The complainant averred that he purchased a LG T.V and Sun Direct Dish Antina from opposite party on the promise that both TV and Dish Antina service facilities will be given after sales. The complainant further averred that from 16-10-10 onwards the Dish Antina is not functioning and that he approached the opposite party several times and demanded for replacing or servicing the Dish Antina but the opposite party has not done anything for the same. The complainant alleged that the acts of opposite party amounts to serious deficiency in service. Alleging the said matter, the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice dtd 27/10/10 to the opposite party. The said notice copy is produced and marked as Ext.A1 and the acknowledgement card dated 29-10-10 evidencing the acceptance of the said notice is also produced and marked as Ext.A2. As the opposite party chose not to contest, the allegations of the complainant against the opposite party remain unchallenged. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the opposite party is deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.
The opposite party will service the L.G. T.V and sun direct antina and make it defect free to the complainant’s satisfaction failing which the opposite party will pay Rs. 5000/- as an alternative. The opposite party will also pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1-The copy of the lawyer notice dtd 27-10-10
Ext.A2-The copy of the acknowledgement card
Documents of the opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
