O R D E R
By SmtSreeja S.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Philips LED 40PFL505938432 TV from Bismi Appliances, 3rd opposite party worth Rs.35,500/-on 27.08.2016 having a warranty period of 5 years. It is alleged that 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are the manufactures of the TV. As the TV abruptlylost its visuals on 28.09.18, the petitioner made complaint with opposite parties. On inspection, the opposites technician found the board of the TV got damaged and assured the replacement of the TV. It is also alleged that in the end of the repeated demands for the replacement, 3rd opposite party conceded to replace it with a low branded and less facility TV, which has been refused by the complainant. The opposite parties totally ignored the demand of the complainant to repair the TV within the period of its 5 year replacement warranty. Hence deficiency of service and unfair trade practices having been alleged. Causing unlawful loss, mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. The lawyer notice issued against all the opposite parties but were in veilhence the complaint.
2. On receiving the complaint, the notice was properly served on the opposite parties and all opposite parties remained absent and the opposite parties were set Exparte and posted for complainant’s evidence.
3. From the side of the complainant, complainant appeared before the Forum and filed proof affidavit affirming all the averments stated in the complaint. 6 documents were also produced and marked as Exts. P1 to P6 series in evidence. Ext.P1 is the Bill no TCRG1TCR- 6563 dated 27.08.16 issued by 3rd opposite party. Ext.P2 is the warranty card dated 27.08.16 Ext.P3 is the office copy of lawyer notice dated 6.12.18 Ext. P4 is the postal receipts. Ext.P5 is acknowledgement card. Ext.P6 series are the returned lawyer notices against 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The defective TV also produced and marked as MO1. We have gone through the affidavit and perused the documents. We also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. According to the complainant, he purchased Philips TV worth Rs.35,500/-. Ext.P1 proves the purchase. Ext. P2 warranty card show that TV has five years warranty. Ext. P3 to P6 series would show that proper notice has been issued to the opposite parties to demanding the replacement or else to return the amount. Thecomplainant also proved his agony, unlawful loss, mental pain and inconvenienceentitling him to recover damages from the opposite parties. Since there is no contra evidence available before us we are inclined to accept the proof affidavit, the documents and MO1 marked in evidence. Thereforeitonly to be concluded that there is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed against the complaints.
5. In the result oppositeparties are hereby directed to replace the defective TV with a new Philip LED 40 PFL 505938432 TV or to pay a sum of Rs.35500/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint and also directed to pay sum of Rs.2500/- towards cost within one month from the date receiving the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of November 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S.Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair P.K.Sasi Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Bill no TCRG1TCR-6563 dated 27.08.16
Ext.P2 Warranty card
Ext.P3 Office copy of lawyer notice
Ext.P4 Postal receipts
Ext.P5 Acknowledgement card
Ext.P6 Returned lawyer notices
.
Id/-
Member
