CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 29^th day of December, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 11/09/2012

CC /169/2012

Lakshmanan.K,

S/o. Karuppan, - Complainant

Kallumpurath house, Kalluvazhi.

Thiruvazhiyode,

Palakkad – 679 514

(BY ADV. V. Shanmughanandan)

Vs

1. The Managing Director,

Videocon Industries Ltd., Fort house,

2^nd Floor, 221, dr. D.N. Road, - Opposite parties

Mumbai – 400 001

2. The Manager,

Big Bazar ( Furniture Value Retail Ltd),

City Centre, 11/817, English Church Road,

Palakkad.

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Complaint in brief :-

The complainant has bought a Videocon LCD VLL 32FBA/M for Rs. 21,990/- from the 2^nd opposite party. The installation of the unit in the complainant's house was done by Mr. Afsal who was deputed by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant has been directed to contact him for any service in future.

For ten months the LCD TV worked without fail. Then the screen began to fail frequently. In march 2012 it was totally vanished and complainant reported Mr. Afsal the, technician, who came and took it away for mending. After two months the technician informed that the Board and the panel of the said TV have been spoiled irreparably and the same was not available in stock. Considering the cost of the panel the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that it is better to buy a new one instead of repairing. An expensive unit from a reputed brand did not work even for one year. In spite of repeated demands for getting the unit repaired no favourable response has been received from the opposite parties.

The act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service. So the complainant seeking and order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- including the cost of the LCD TV, the compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties did not appear before the Forum, even though notice served and remained exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext. A1 and A2 marked.

Heard the matter.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so what is the relief and cost ?

Issues 1 &2

In this case the complainant had bought a Videocon LCD TV VLL32FBA/M for an amount of Rs. 21,990/- from the 2^nd opposite party. It is evident from Ext. A1 document. For 10 months from the purchase the TV worked without problem. After that the screen began to fail frequently. The complainant informed the technician of the 2^nd opposite party who installed the unit in the house of the complainant. He came and took it for mending. After two months the technician of the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the Board and panel of the LCD TV have been spoiled irreparably and the same was not available in the stock. He also told the complainant that it is better to buy a new TV instead of repairing the old TV, considering the cost of the part. Complainant submitted an email request before 2^nd opposite party and their customer care centres Ext. A2 shows the same.

Complainant himself admits that for 10 months the TV worked properly. The complainant used the TV for nearly one year. So that depreciation will be caused to the TV. There is no documents or expert opinion to show the defects of the TV. As the opposite parties remain exparte the contentions of the complainant stands unchallenged.

From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty thousand only) including cost of the TV, compensation for mental agony and 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 29 ^th day of December, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Copy of cash memo no 141/2958 dtd. 23/01/11.

Ext. A2- Email request dtd 19/08/2012.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost

allowed