DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of August, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.103/2008

Suresh.P.R,

S/o.Late Raveendran Nair,

Raveendram,

Kodunthirapully,

Palakkad 678 004 - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1. The Managing Partner/Proprietor,

M/s.Tech Care India Private Limited,

32/215, Aswathy,

Pallath East Lane,

Opp. Punkunnam Church,

Punkunnam,

Thrissur 680 002.

(By Adv.M.V.Suryaprabha)

2. The Managing Partner/Proprietor,

M/s.Jamal Sales Corporation,

Jamal Building,

Court Road,

Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.Akbar Ali)

O R D E R

By Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

Complaint in brief is as follows:

On 19/08/2002 the complainant purchased a Sansui colour television (model CTVSV 2110K, Sl. No.9120803512) by paying an amount of Rs.13,690/- from the 2^nd opposite party. It has a warranty of 7 years. In August, 2008 the TV set stopped functioning. Complainant informed the matter with 2^nd opposite party, who is the television dealer. 2^nd opposite party sent a technician and he informed the complainant that the picture tube of the TV has been damaged and it needs to be changed. After that the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party several times they also sent a technician. Both the technicians made

the complainant believe that the picture tube will be replaced by the company free of cost. The complainant again contacted the 1^st opposite party dealer. At that time the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the picture tube cannot be replaced free of cost. Only 15% of the cost of the picture tube will be borne by the company. The above acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part and caused mental agony to the complainant as television is the most popular form of entertainment. So the complainant approached the forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the picture tube free of cost and pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with cost.

2. The complaint was admitted and opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. It is not correct to say that the picture tube will be replaced on the basis of terms of warranty conditions. Even though there is 7 years of warranty for the Sansui TV model 2110K, the picture tube will be replaced only during the first year of the warranty period. After the completion of the first year, the service charge of the technician will be free of cost. But the spare parts cost will have to be borne by the customer with 15% discount on company's price list. 1^st opposite party is ready to follow the warranty terms. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Both parties filed affidavit and Exts.A1 and A2 are marked on the part of complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The issues to be considered are ;

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

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

5. Issues 1 & 2: We perused the relevant documents on record. As per Ext.A1 document it is true that the complainant purchased a Sansui TV model CTVSV 2110K worth Rs.13,690/- from the 2^nd opposite party. On 25/08/08 the complainant booked a complaint about the non functioning of TV with the 2^nd opposite party. Technicians were sent by the 2^nd opposite party as well as 1^st opposite party. The technicians informed that the picture tube is in error and it will be replaced by the company at free of cost. The complainant believed the words of the technicians and waited for replacement of picture tube.

The complainant again telephoned the 1^st opposite party dealer. At that time he informed the complainant that the picture tube cannot be replaced. Only 15% of the company price of the picture tube will borne by the company.

6. Going through Ext.A2, condition No.11, it is clearly stated that “out of the total warranty of 7 years, 1^st year is a comprehensive warranty where visit charges/service charges and component charges will be free of cost. The remaining six years is non comprehensive warranty. Under non comprehensive warranty after completion of first year, the visit charge/service charge of the technician etc will be free of cost. The spare parts costs will have to be borne by the customer with 15% discount on company's price list”.

7. In view of the above discussions, we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.

9. Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of August, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Warranty card

Ext.A2 – Credit Invoice No.2309 dtd.19/08/02

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Costs (Not allowed)