This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 02-12-11 in the presence of Sri Ch. J.V. Kumar, advocate for the complainant,                 Smt M. Charu Latha, advocate for 2^nd opposite party and of                            Sri S. Sowri, advocate for 1^st opposite party having on record, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of TV set and Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The 2^nd opposite party is manufacturer of TV sets under the name and style of Onida.   The 1^st opposite party is a dealer of the              2^nd opposite party.   The complainant on 24-04-10 purchased Onida colour television 21 ultra sim ace 300 for Rs.7,500/-.   Two days after purchase no picture appeared on the said television.   The complainant immediately approached the 1^st opposite party along with television and required him to rectify the defect.   The 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to keep the television set with it so as to rectify the problem and required the complainant to approach 10 days later.   The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 10-05-10.   After repair the 1^st opposite party on 10-05-10 delivered the said television to the complainant.    On the next day the same problem occurred.   Again the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and brought to his notice the defect.   The 1^st opposite party took two months time to rectify the problem.   Again two days later the same defect occurred.     In view of frequent repairs the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to replace the television,   for which it gave evasive reply.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 are under an obligation to rectify the defects occurred during warranty period.   The complainant issued notice to the opposite parties.   The 1^st opposite party gave reply with false allegations.   The above attitude of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is thus:

        The complainant two days after purchase made a complaint to the 1^st opposite party for which immediately responded by deputing his representative.  Upon investigation by its representative the 1^st opposite party came to know that the complainant mishandled television set and pressed all the keys as per her choice and thus the picture did not appear.   Mechanic of the 1^st opposite party restored the television to function and instructed the complainant to handle television properly.   Since then there was no complaint from the complainant.   About three months back complainant’s husband approached the 1^st opposite party for a credit in purchasing mixer/grinder for which it refused.   Due to that the complainant developed ill will against the 1^st opposite party and filed this complaint to harass.   The 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

The 2^nd opposite party is not aware till receipt of summons from the Forum what transpired between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party is a reputed company having several branches all over the States and it feels that its consumer is God.   The 2^nd opposite party is ready and willing to replace the television set if ordered by the Forum.   The 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for personal grudges between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.   Usually there will be no defect while manufacturing the sets.   The 2^nd opposite party is not aware about the defect in the television given to the complainant.   Neither the complainant nor the 1^st opposite party brought the defect in television, if any    , to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

1. 5.   Exs.A-1 to A5 and Ex.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of the complainant and               2^nd opposite party were marked.

6.    Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and if so by whom?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

7.    POINT No.1:-   The complainant purchasing television under Ex.A-1 from the 1^st opposite party who is a dealer of the 2^nd opposite party, the television purchased under Ex.A-1 was having a warranty are not disputed.   Exchange of notices between the complainant and 1^st opposite party was also not disputed.   The averments of the complaint and version of 1^st opposite party clearly established that they once attended to repair of the TV set covered by Ex.A-1.

8.     The 2^nd opposite party in paras 4 and 5 of its version mentioned the following:

                “This respondent is a reputed company having several branches all over the state having clean and good report showing responsibility towards the customers.   The company feels that customer is god and works for that. 

                This respondent is ready and willing to replace the television set if the Hon’ble Forum orders the same……… there is no lack of service from this respondent”.    

9.   There was no intimation to the 2^nd opposite party from the complainant regarding the defect in the TV set purchased under Ex.A-1 except issuing Ex.A-3 notice.  The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant failed to register his grievance through online and as such is unable to know it.   To substantiate its contention the 2^nd opposite party filed Ex.B-1 to show the complaints received through online.   The said contention of the 2^nd opposite party is having considerable force. 

10.    In view of the above admission of the 2^nd opposite party for replacing TV set it is not necessary to consider whether there is any deficiency of service or not on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party i.e., manufacturer of TV in question.   Under those circumstances disposing off the case directing the 2^nd opposite party to replace the TV will meet ends of justice.   Hence this point is answered accordingly.

11.    POINT No.2:-    In view of above finding on point no.1 we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any damages.   Hence we answer this point against the complainant. 

12.    POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is disposed off with a direction to the 2^nd opposite party to replace the television set covered under Ex.A-1 within four weeks.  There is no order as to costs. 

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 9^th day of              December, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:

                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT