Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/14/193

Jayaprakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Harshitha.K.M.

15 Jan 2015

ORDER

C.D.R.F. Kasaragod
Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/193
 
1. Jayaprakash
S/o Venkappa Shetty, R/at. Thotadamane, R.D.Nagar Post, Kudlu Village, Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager
Big Bazar ( Future Value Retail Ltd.) Square Nine Mall, Opp:New Bus stand, Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
2. The Manager
Koryo Electronics, Future Value Retail Ltd., Tower C, 8th Floor, 247 Park, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (west), Mumbai - 400083
Mumbai
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. P.RAMADEVI PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Shiba.M.Samuel MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

                                                                     Date of filing    :  27-08-2014

                                                                     Date of order   :  16-01-2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.193/2014

                      Dated this, the 16th   day of  January  2015

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

 

Jayapraksh, S/o.Venkappa Shetty,                                  : Complainant

R/at Thotadamane, R.D.Nagar.Po, Kudlu Village,

Kasaragod Dist and Taluk.

(Adv.Harshitha.K.M. Kasaragod)

 

1 The Manager,                                                                    : Opposite parties

    Big Bazzar (Future Value Retail Ltd),

    Square Nine Mall, Opposite New Bus Stand,

    Kasaragod.Po, Kasaragod Dt.

2  The Manager, Koryo Electronics,

     Future Value Retail Limited. Tower C,8th

     Floore, 247 Park L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (West),

     Mumbai, Maharashtra. 400083.

(Ops 1 & 2 Exparte)

                                                                                                O R D E R

SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT

 

                The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

            That the complainant purchased LED Television from 1st opposite party on 05-10-2011 for an amount of Rs.24,000/- and 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer and the above said TV set is having warranty for a period of 3 years.  On 2-7-2014 while the complainant and his family watching the TV suddenly some defects arisen  in parts of Television and gradually picture also disappeared.  On the very next day the complainant approached 1st  opposite party by taking the television for repairing the same and the 1st opposite party told that they will inform to the 2nd opposite party  and also told that do not bring the television to 1st opposite party and asked the complainant to come next week.  Then the complainant again gone to the 1st opposite party  several time but they have not given any service. Then he directly informed 2nd opposite party and  they replied that they will come.  But repeated requests  the 2nd opposite party also did not come and the defect of the TV is not cured. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary redressal.

2.         Both opposite parties duly served notice and they remained absent, set exparte.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 and A2  were marked.  Ext.A1 is the user’s manual, Ext.A2 is the warranty card.

4.         Heard the complainant and documents perused.  As per Ext.A2 the TV set was purchased on 5-01-2011 and the period of warranty is 3 years.  On considering the facts of the case the opposite parties failed to provide after sale service to customers and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Moreover the opposite party eventhough   served the  notice have not turned up and ignored  the notice issued by  a court of   law.  There is no contra evidence before the Forum.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.24,000/- being the price of the LED TV set and cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant and on receiving  the amount the complainant is directed to return the defective LED TV to the opposite parties. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

  Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. User’s Manual.

A2. Warranty Card.

 Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

 

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by  order

 

                                                                          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. P.RAMADEVI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shiba.M.Samuel]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.