By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that on 7.2.1998 complainant purchased a Sharp Brand 21” colour Television with Model No.21, F.N.I. Dx. Serial No.51107352 for Rs.19,150/- from opposite party No.1.  The Television was being used by the complainant for the last 8 months without any trouble.  Within 8 months from the date of purchase defects have started to the Television set and it became automatically off while working.  Later channel memory was not functioning properly.  So the complainant made complaints before the dealer.  The 1^st opposite party after much delay repaired the television by the dealer’s technician.  But after repair the defects of the television were only increased and started appearing black spot on the picture tube apart from other defects.  Picture tube is the main part of a television, which requires long life span over which defects were started.  The 1^st opposite party adopted an irresponsible and adamant attitude towards the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party is not at all concerned with the interest of the consumer.  Complainant was put to heavy mental sufferings, untold hardships and pain due to the unfair trade practice.  Hence complainant prays to replace the colour television set purchased by him from the opposite party with a brand new one or to repay the amount and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

            Opposite party appeared and filed version stating that it is true that the complainant had purchased a television manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 7.2.1998 for Rs.19150/- from the 1^st opposite party and also admitted that the said television is warranted for a period of one year from the date of purchase as per the terms and conditions of the warranty card.  There is no cause of action as alleged.  All the claims made by the complainant are only to be rejected.  Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.

            Points for consideration: (1) Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation?  (2) If so, what is the quantum?

            Complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts. P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the complainant.  Opposite parties have no oral evidence.  Exts. R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

            This Forum already had pronounced an order in this case on 31.3.1999.  In that order, Forum directed the opposite party No.1 to replace the television set by a brand new one and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.300/- towards the cost.  Against this order, opposite party No.1 preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and in the order dated 16.10.2001, the State Commission directed the District Forum to engage an expert commission for examining the television set.  Accordingly, panel for experts were submitted as per I.A.No.17/08 and Mr. Saji G.P., Lecturer, Department of Electronics and Communication, Govt. Engineering College, Kozhikode was appointed as Expert Commission.  On 5.7.2008, the above said Commissioner submitted his inspection Report.  The Commissioner was examined as CW1 and inspection report was marked as Ext. C1.  Opposite party filed objection against this report.  Expert Commissioner categorically opined that the said television cannot be repaired as its two prime and major components are defective.  Nothing  is disbelievable in the Ext. C1 report.  Hence report submitted by the Expert Commission is accepted.  Therefore, Forum directs the opposite party No.1 to replace the television set by a brand new one.

            In the result, petition is allowed with a direction to the opposite party No.1 has to replace the television set by a brand new one within one month from the date of order and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards his mental pain and sufferings.  No order as to cost.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 31^st day of December 2008.

                                    Sd/-President                                  Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the Complainant:

P1        Bill No.3865 dated 7.2.98 for Rs.19150/-.

P2            Purchase copy of warranty card.

P3        Copy of lawyer notice dated 8.1.99 along with postal receipt & ack. Card.

Documents exhibited for the opposite parties;

R1            Photocopy of Reply to Ext. P3 lawyer notice.

R2            Photocopy of Service Report No.210.

R3            Photocopy of Reply to Ext. P3 lawyer notice

C1            Inspection Report dated 5.7.2008.

Witness examined for the Complainant.

PW1     Ravi G. Nair, S/o. Gopalakrishnan – Complainant.

Witness examined for the Opposite parties

None.

CW1            Sajeev.G.P., S/o. Gopalakrishna Pisharady, “Manjutha”, Behind Viplava Kalavedi,

            Kozhikode.

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/By Order)

Senior Superintendent.