DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of October 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 26/12/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.211/2016)
Sankunni,
S/o (late) Kunjikanna Menon,
Rohini Nivas,
Chittur (Po). Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad - Complainant
(Adv.T.Mahesh)
V/s
1. The Manager,
Next Retail India Ltd,
Soorya City Building,
G.B.Road, Palakkad,
2. The Manager,
Philips India Ltd,
Sanni saib C Block, - Opposite party
No.8/17, Shafi Muhammed Road,
2nd street, Chennai - 600 006.
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,
The complainant had purchased a LED TV (Product Code No.14000023991) on 02.06.2016 from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase the 1st opposite party had provided 1 year warranty and had also introduced a new scheme for extension of warranty. Accordingly the complainant had extended the warranty for another 2 years by paying an amount of Rs.1,51,2.99/-. Hence the TV bears a warranty period up to 02.06.2017. The complainant alleges that the said TV stopped functioning from October 2016 onwards. Since no sound was produced from the TV the complainant approached the 1st opposite party directly and over phone and complained about it. But, the staff of the 1st opposite party misbehaved towards the complainant and abused him and also informed that they could not repair the complaints of the said TV. The complainant informed them about the extended warranty provided to him even then they did not bother to consider his complaint. The complainant’s son issued a complaint from his mail id on 05.11.2016 to the 2nd opposite party’s customer care mail id but no reply was received from them. They did not care to enquire about his claim. The complainant alleges that both the opposite parties are legally liable to redress his complaint. The complainant had also complained about the TV to the customer care service centre of the 2nd opposite party at Palakkad but no efforts were taken from their part to redress his grievance. Complainant states that he had suffered a lot of mental agony due to the non performance of the TV. He could not watch programmes and news and was teased by his neighbors and relatives. The complainant alleges that the above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.26,462.88/- being the price paid towards the cost of the TV and also an amount of Rs.1,512.99/- paid towards the extension of warranty and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Notice was issued to the opposite party’s for appearance. 1st opposite party remained absent inspite of accepting notice from the Forum. Hence he was called absent and set ex-parte. Since no information with regard to the delivery of notice was received, the Forum directed an enquiry with the Postal Authorities and a report was received stating that notice to the 2nd opposite party was served. Hence 2nd opposite party was also called absent and set ex-parte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. EXts.A1 to A4 was marked. Complainant filed another application as IA 234 (a)/2017 to appoint an expert commission. Application was allowed and an expert commissioner was appointed to examine the TV and file a detail report. The commissioner filed the report after examination of the TV which was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed matter was heard.
The following issues that arises for consideration are.
1.Whether there is any defect to the TV as alleged in the complaint ?
2.Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties ?
3.If so what are the relief and cost?
Issues No.1 , 2 & 3
We have perused the documents and affidavit filed before the Forum.
According to the expert commissioner’s report the alleged TV has no sound and the picture stand still when opened. He had opined that since the D2h services has turned defective and is embeded in the mother board, the mother board have to be replaced which will cost about Rs.7,000/-. Since there is no contradictory evidence to disprove the allegations stated in the complaint the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 32,500/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand five hundred only) being the cost of TV along with Tax and Service Tax and additional amount paid towards extended warranty etc, and also to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of this proceedings.
The afore said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 9% p.a for the afore said amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28rd day of October 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Photo copy of Cash/Credit Memo of Next Retail India Ltd. dated. 02.06.2014
Ext.A2 – Photo copy of email copy sent by the complainant’s son to the 2nd
opposite party
Ext.A3 (a) – Receipt of postal receipt
Ext.A3 (b) - Acknowledgement card signed by the 1st opposite party
Ext.A3 series - photo copy of lawyer notice sent by the complainant’s advocate to 1st
opposite party
Ext.A4 - User Mannual of Philips TV
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Commission Report
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Rs.5,000/-
