DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of June 2013
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
: Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing :21/01/2013
CC No.25/2013
Kalamandalam Divakara Panikkar,
S/o.Late Kalyani Amma,
Kavungal, Anugraha,
Mezhathur, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar)
Vs
1.The Manager,
M/s.Sansui, Gowri Sankaram,
39/2730, 2nd Floor,
Darbar Hall Road,
Cochin – 682 016
2.The Proprietor,
M/s.Nandilath Agencies,
Riyaz Complex, Mele Pattambi,
Palakkad
(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathinchalil)
3.The Manager,
M/s.Tek Care India P.Ltd.
2020/1100 A, Azad Building,
Cherumanassery Road,
Kallai Post,
Calicut – 673 003. - Opposite parties
(By Adv.S.Vinod)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant was the compainant in CC/143/2007. The 3rd opposite party on behalf of all opposite parties given a new Television instead of replacing the picture tube as per the order in CC/143/2007. On 18/10/2011 the complainant was substituted with a new T.V. manufactured by 1st opposite party and the old TV was taken back by opposite parties. The opposite parties had issued warranty for 1 year from 18/10/11. Within a short span the new TV also started giving problems. It showed an arching and stopped functioning. The complainant has immediately contacted the toll free telephone numbers of 1st opposite party for assistance. But there was no response. On 9/5/12 the complainant issued a registered notice to the 3rd opposite party. But they made no reply. The T.V. is having manufacturing defect. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to replace the T.V with a new T.V of good quality and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with cost of the proceedings.
2nd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. It is admitted that 1st opposite party had given a new T.V to the complainant instead of replacing the picture tube as per the order in CC/143/2007. 1st opposite party had directly given the new Television. 2nd opposite party had no transaction for giving the new television by 1st opposite party. It is denied that all opposite parties had given the new television to complainant. The television of the complainant had became defects due to the defects of the electric circuit of the complainant. All other allegations of complainant are denied by 2nd opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint.
Notice served to 1st and 3rd opposite party. 1st opposite party was set exparte. 3rd opposite party has not filed version and affidavit.
Complainant and 2nd opposite party filed their chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. No documnetary evidence produced by the opposite parites. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue No.1 & 2
We heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record. In Ext.A1, 3rd opposite party had given the television to complainant. The warranty card attached to the Ext.A1 the seal given by the 3rd opposite party. 2nd opposite party admitted that 1st opposite party had given a new television to complainant instead of replacing the picture tube. Now also the T.V. started giving problems. The complainant has not taken steps to expert opinion for proving the manufacturing defect of the television. The complainant stated the opposite parties had not raised objections to the manufacturing defects of Television. According to the 2nd opposite party the main allegation is that they had not interfered the new television given to the complainant. The 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party had not filed version and affidavit. The counsel of complainant argued that the opposite parties had not raised objection regarding the manufacturing defect of the television. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties to show that they had given new television without manufacturing defect to the complainant. In Ext.A2 the complainant had sent lawyer notice dated 9/5/2012 to 3rd opposite party. But the 3rd opposite party had not sent any reply notice. As per the order in Ext.A3 the opposite party had given new television instead of replacing the picture tube.
According to the complainant, he could not watch T.V. programs for the last 6 years. After purchasing a television from opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss. The opposite parties had not taken steps to give proper service or repair the television within the warranty period. The 2nd opposite party had stated that they had not interfered the matter to give a new television. As per the order in CC/143/2007 all opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply the order. The complainant stated that the television given by the opposite parties had manufacturing defect. 1st opposite party was set exparte and 3rd opposite parties has not filed version and affidavit. The complainant has not produced expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect of new television. So we cannot considered the prayer of replace the television with a new T.V. of good quality.
In the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of June 2013.
Sd/-
Seena.H,
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Owner’s Manual
Ext.A2 – Lawyer notice dated 9/5/12 sent to 3rd opposite party
Ext.A3 – Order copy in CC/143/2007
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.
