<br /> <br /> M. GOPINATHAN,<br /> MAY FLOWER, : COMPLAINANT<br /> EDAVATTAM,<br /> PAVITHRESWARAM,<br /> KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM.<br /> (Sibadas.T. Advocate, Kollam)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.THE MANAGER,<br /> HEAD OFFICE –T V MARKETING :OPPOSITEPARTIES <br /> PHILPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD,<br /> TECHNO POLIS KNOWLEDGE PARK,<br /> MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, CHAKALA,<br /> ANDHERT EAST, MUMBAI-400093 <br /> 2.CHOICE HOME APPLIANCES&SERVICES,<br /> AUTHORISED DEALER PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD,<br /> PARUTHANPARA, CHEERANKAVU<br /> EZHUKONE, <br /> KOLLAM.<br /> 3.M/s. VINAYAKA ELECTRONICS,<br /> AUTHORISED PHILIPS SERVICE CENTRE,<br /> KOTTARAM NAGAR NO.4,<br /> HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, KOLLAM-9<br /> 4.PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD,<br /> KRISHNA KRIPA, LAYAM ROAD,<br /> COCHIN<br /> O R D E R<br /> By R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant filed the complaint for replacement television with a brand new one of the same make or getting full amount of television with an interest of 12% per annum and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The avernments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant purchased a 21” Philips flat colour Television on 9/4/06 with one year warranty from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.6,990/-. From the beginning itself the functioning of Television was not satisfactory. It was informed to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party cured the defect but on 12/11/06 the television became defunct. Further it was informed to the 2nd opposite party and as directed by the 2nd opposite party the technician of 2nd opposite party checked the Television and detached the circuit board informing the complainant that the circuit board had some manufacturing defect and the same will be replaced or repaired within one week. The complainant enquired several times but only after 45 days 3rd opposite party informed that it was repaired and demanded Rs.3,100/- as service charger. As the demand was against the warranty condition it was informed to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties by the complainant. They also directed to pay service charge. The opposite parties are duty bound to replace the television as per the condition of warranty. The complainant sent a legal notice but it was not responded by the opposite parties. The unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party caused monitory loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The opposite parties remained absent. Hence they were set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit. Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> 2. Compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant could prove his case through complaint affidavit and exhibits. On perusal of documents we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.6,990/- as the full amount of purchased Television with an interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008<br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> List of witness for the complaint<br /> <br /> PW1 Gopinathan<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complaint.<br /> <br /> Ext: P1 Photocopy of warranty card and retail invoice (dated 9-4-06)<br /> Ext: P2 Postal receipts No.3<br /> Ext: P3 Copy of Advocate notice (dated 5-1-07)<br /> Ext: P4 Acknowledgement cards<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> .<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> .<br />