BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 95/2006 Filed on 23.03.2006

Dated : 28.02.2009

Complainants:

1. N. Leelamani, residing at T.C 6/986-6, Uthradam, Padayani Road, Maruthunkuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. R. Vijayan, T.C 6/986-6, Uthradam, Padayani Road, Maruthunkuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. M.S. Santhosh Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Master Electronics Co. Pvt. Ltd., Dilkush, Madrasa Lane, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Managing Director, OS 10 Times, Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd., 50-Koregoan Park, Pune-411 001.

    

3. The Proprietor, Konathappally Enterprises, Chittoor Road, Cochin – 682 035.

(By adv. N. Anilkumar)

This O.P having been heard on 11.02.2009, the Forum on 28.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The 2^nd complainant is the husband of the 1^st complainant. The 1^st complainant on 07.05.2003 had purchased a Panasonic Television set for Rs. 10,490/- from the 3^rd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the sole dealer of the said T.V sets in India. The 3^rd opposite party is the sub dealer of the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized service centre of Panasonic T.V sets. At the time of the said purchase the staff of the 3^rd opposite party and the representative of the 2^nd opposite party who were present at that time in the show room of the 3^rd opposite party had assured the complainants regarding the outstanding quality and trustworthiness of the said television sets and made the complainants believe that the said television is having built in lightening resistance and that all the spare parts of the said set are easily available locally and also with the 2^nd opposite party and that the 2^nd opposite party was having sufficient stock of the spare parts to meet the requirements for at least 5 years. Thereafter, in 2004 itself the said television set started mal-functioning and the staff of the 3^rd opposite party had done some minor repairs 3 or 4 times. While so, the said set stopped the functioning completely on 06.05.2004. So it was brought to the 1^st opposite party for repair. The 1^st opposite party after detailed inspection of the set had taken the same for repairs vide service memo No. 31142. At the time of taking the said television set for repairs the technicians of the 1^st opposite party told the 2^nd complainant that the said television set is perfectly OK except a minor defect of the system control I/C and that the I/C could be replaced without any delay. Thereafter, the complainants had several times visited the 1^st opposite party for taking back the said television set after repair. But all those occasions the technicians of the and 1^st opposite party had behaved rudely and demanded more time to complete the repair. Finally the technicians of the 1^st opposite party told the complainants that spare parts of the said T.V set are not available and that the repairs would be completed only upon getting the spare parts from Japan. The request of the complainants to provide the number of the required I/C was also turned down by the staff and Manager of the 1^st opposite party. Further, the request of the complainants to complete the repairs of the said T.V sets before Onam festival which fell in 2^nd week of September 2004, was also not conceded by the Manager and staff of the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter, when the complainants contacted the 1^st opposite party they were told that the technician who was dealing with the repair work of the said T.V was on his way to Trivandrum to Ernakulam and that he got the repaired spare parts and that the repair work of the said T.V set would be completed within 2 or 3 days. But the 1^st opposite party did not care to repair the said T.V thereafter. So an advocate notice dated 10.11.2005 was sent to the 1^st opposite party with copy to the 2^nd opposite party at the instance of the 1^st complainant calling upon the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to replace the said T.V with another one in good working condition. Thereafter, also, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties would not turn up either to repair the said T.V set or to replace the same with another. The 1^st opposite party had sent a reply dated 07.12.2005 stating false and twisting contentions. Thereafter on 11.02.2006, the 1^st opposite party had sent a letter to the 2^nd complainant informing that they are not in a position to carry out the repairs and asking to take back the said T.V set. However, the said T.V set is still with the 1^st opposite party. Complainants stated that the acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

The 1^st opposite party, the Managing Director, Master Electronics, filed version and thereafter they did not turn up to contest the case. Hence opposite parties remain exparte.

The 2^nd complainant the husband of the 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents to prove this case. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs?

3. Costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the complainants have produced 5 documents to prove their case. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the original purchase bill No. 16792 issued by the 3^rd opposite party. Ext. P2 is the service memo issued by the authorized service centre, the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 10.11.2005. Ext. P4 is the reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party dated 07.12.2005. Ext. P5 is the reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party dated 11.02.2006. The 2^nd complainant filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1. The opposite parties did not cross examine the complainant and hence the affidavit filed by him stands unchallenged.

The complainant purchased the T.V on 07.05.2003. The allegation of the complainant is that from the very beginning of the purchase date of the T.V, the set was defective. While so the said set stopped functioning completely on 06.05.2005. The complainant entrusted the T.V set for repair to the 1^st opposite party on 17.06.2005. And thereafter the T.V set has been there. On 10.11.2005, the complainant sent a lawyer's notice (Ext. P3) to the 1^st opposite party demanding to return the T.V after repairing within 2 weeks or replace with a new one. Exts. P4 and P5 are the reply notices sent by the opposite party to the complainant stating that the PCB was totally damaged due to lightning and repairs were not possible due to the non-availability of spares and they requested to take back the T.V set. And till now the T.V set is with the custody of the 1^st opposite party. The act of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defect on the ground for want of spare parts is not justifiable. The dealer as well as the service centre are equally liable to rectify the defect. The T.V has been purchased in the year 2003 and the defects are seen from the very beginning of the purchase. If the opposite parties had no spare parts available with them, then why they have sold such items, wherein the defect has arisen immediately from the date of purchase as per the complainant. If the opposite parties had informed the complainant well in advance with regard to the non-availability of the spares at the time of purchase itself, the complainant might not have opted for this. The act of the opposite party in selling such equipments like the above for which the spare parts are not available definitely amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is allowed and the complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs. 9,490/-, the price of the T.V after deduction of Rs. 1000/- towards depreciation.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 9,490/- along with Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 12% interest shall also be paid on the above said amounts till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 28^th February 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 95/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - R. Vijayan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Cash/credit bill No. 16792 dated 07.05.2003 for Rs. 10,490/-.

P2 - Service memo No. 31142 with receiving date 17.06.2005.

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 10.11.2005.

P4 - Reply notice dated 07.12.2005.

P5 - Letter dated 11.02.2006 issued to the complainant by the

opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT