Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 23 rd day of December, 2004
C.D.No.34/2004
P.Krishna, S/o. Late Govinda Rao,
Working as office Asst. S.B.I
Mantralayam Branch, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri S. Siva Ramakrishna Prasad.
-Vs-
1. The proprietor,
M/s Rayala traders,
Wholesale dealers,
5and6 Municipal Shops,
M.M.Road, Adoni.
.. . Opposite party
2. The Manager, Adonis Electronics (P) Ltd, Onida Customer relations centre,
5-9-77, Bala Chapal Road,
Hyderabad.
. . . Opposite party
3. M/s Rayala traders,
Rep by its partner,
V.Sumanth Gupta,
S/o. Devendra Gupta,
Shop No.5and6, M.M.Road, Adoni. . . . Opposite party represented by his coun
Sri T. Eswar babu.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to replace the defective CTV with new CTV or to pay cost f the CTV i.e Rs. 12,100/- with 24% interest from 29.4.2002, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, cost of the complaint and any such other reliefor reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant purchased a ONIDA CTV model 211Q with serial No.211554160748 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.12,100/- on 29.4.2002. The said CTV had one year warranty period from the date of purchase against manufacturing defects. Immediately after the purchase of said CTV, on 21 May, 2002 the sound system of the said CTV completely failed. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for repairs, to some extend opposite party No.3 got the said CTV repaired. Again on 12.12.2002 the same problem erupted, on approach to opposite party No 3 to rectify the said defect, opposite party No.3 expressed his inability and requested the complainant to approach opposite party No.2. On 21.12.2002 the complainant has written a letter to opposite party No.2 envisaging his complaint, even after receiving the said letter the opposite party No.2 did not respond. So, on 13.1.2003, the complainant approached consumer welfare society, Adoni, and represented his grievances. In pursuance to the said representation to the said society, opposite party No.2 replied dt 22.8.2003 requesting the complainant to approach his office at Hyderabad. As complainant is residing at Adoni, it is practically not possible to carry the said CTV all the way from Adoni to Hyderabad. So, again he sent a representation to opposite party No.2 through Adoni, society and opposite party No.2 replied dt 22.10.2003 asking the complainant to replace the said CTV at service depot located at Room No.8. Bangi Ananthaiah complex, Opp Control Room, Kurnool and asked to take model No. 21 ISS4 CTV, when approached the service depot, the in charge offered a local made assembled CTV. Again, the complainant sent a representation to opposite party No.2 on 3.11.2003 to which the opposite party No.2 replied stating that he can replace the said CTV only at Kurnool. Being vexed with the conduct of opposite party No.2 the complainant got issued legal notice dt 25.2.2002 to which there was no reply. Hence, the said conduct of opposite parties in not replacing the defective CTV with new CTV was held deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) Invoice No.56 dt 28.4.2002 for the purchase of ONIDA Colour TV for Rs.12,100/- issued by opposite party No.3 to the complainant (2) warranty card for one year from 29.4.2002 to 28.4.2003 issued by opposite party No.3 to the complainant(3) letter dt 12.12.2002 of the complainant addressed to opposite party No.3 (4) letter dt 21.12.2002 of the complainant addressed to opposite party No.3 (5) acknowledgement for the receipt of Ex A.4 by opposite party No.3 (6) letter dt 21.12.2002 of the complainant addressed to Mirc electronics, Hyderabad (7) acknowledgement for the receipt of Ex A.6 (8) letter dt 22.10.2003 of opposite party No.2 to the Consumer Welfare Society, Adoni, (9) legal notice dt 25.2.2004 of complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.2, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.9 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case the complainant the opposite party No.1 was made exparte, opposite party No.2 appeared in person and filed written version and opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the purchase of TV by the complainant from opposite party No.3, manufactured by opposite party No.2, under warranty. It admits the said TV had domestic sound disturbance problem but said TV does not suffer from any manufacturing defects and admits the said problem was attended by replacing old chassis in TV with new one. Inspite of that the complainant had a problem again and the opposite party No.2 offered to replace with new 21 ISS4 model set and requested to collect the said mode at service depot at Kurnool. But the complainant refused stating that it is a assembled one. The legal notice dt 25.2.2004 of the complainant’s counsel, alleges baseless allegation that he was offered a local made assembled set not manufactured by opposite party No.2. It lastly submits that the complainant has agreed to take TV set model as offered by opposite party No.2 and is kept ready for delivery, the complainant instead of collecting the same from the service depot approached Forum by filing this frivolous complaint, hence seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. The written version of opposite party No.3 admits the purchase of TV by the complainant from his shop on 29.4.2003. It submits that the complainant cannot ask for replacement of TV because of failure of sound system, as per the conditions stipulated on bill, the complainant can ask for replacement of part, if any during the warrant period. The complainant accepted the said condition signed on the bill. It further submits that the correspondence between the complainant and opposite party No.2 clearly shows, that opposite party No.2 is willing to replace defective TV with new TV, but the complainant without any reason did not take new TV, stating that the new TV is assembled one, which clearly shows the mentality of the complainant. Further the complainant did not mention mental agony and he is not entitled to claim refund of TV amount with interest and seeks for the dismissal of complaint..
7. The opposite party No.2& 3 did not filed their sworn affidavits in support of the written version avernments as defence. The opposite party No.2 filed Xerox copies of documents which are not marked as exhibits as mere filing of documents doesn’t dispence with its proof.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?;-
9. It is the categorical case of the complainant that he purchased “ONIDA Colour TV” from opposite party No.3 on 29.4.2002 and the said colour TV had one year warranty period, if the said TV develops defects within one year. On 21.5.2002 the said colour TV’s sound system failed completely and on approach to the opposite party No.3, temporarily the said defects were rectified and again on 12.12.2002 the same problem erupted and opposite party No.3 opined that the said defects cannot be rectified and requested to approach opposite party No.2 The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the defects develop in the said colour TV of the complainant and also are ready to replace defective TV with new TV but not at the place where the complainant purchased the said defective TV, but at their service depot in Kurnool. The complainant purchased the said TV from opposite party No.3 at Adoni vide Ex A.1, it envisage the invoice No.56 and the purchase of ONIDA CTV by the complainant on 29.4.2002.
10. The opposite party No.2 alleges that they are ready to replace the defective TV with new TV to the complainant, but nothing prevents them to replace the said TV at the shop of opposite party No.3, as the complainant purchased the said TV from the shop of opposite party No.3. There is no point in making the complainant to wait to the sweet pleasure of the opposite parties and to accept the delivery of the assembled TV at the depot of opposite party No.2 at Kurnool
11. The Ex A.2 is the warrant card issued to the complainant on the purchase of ONIDA TV, the Ex A.3,A.4 are the letters addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.3 dt 12.12.2002 and 21.12.2002, Ex A.6 is the letter addressed by complainant to Mirc Electronic, Hyderabad, the Ex A.5&7 are postal acknowledgements, the Ex A.8 is the letter addressed by opposite party No.2 to the Consumer Welfare Society, Adoni, requesting the complainant to take new TV at their service depot, Kurnool and Ex A.9 is legal notice dt 25.2.2004, the same grievances as the said TV purchased by complainant is not working properly and request to replace it or pay the cost of the said TV. It is not remaining essential to go deep into the merits of the above said exhibit in assessing the privy of parties to this case proceedings.
12. The complaint averments and the sworn affidavit averments of the complainant were neither mis-guided nor challenged by the opposite parties. Hence, the said averments which were on oath being not discredited are remaining worthy of acceptance and from them what follows is that the opposite parties could not rectify the defects in the said TV which developed within the warranty period and promised to replace the said TV, but the opposite parties were bent upon making tall promises without intention to comply them and evading the deliver a new TV in place of defective TV to the complainant on one or other ame excuses and there by dis-playing their all time deficiency of service to the complainant in the matters alleged in this case.
13. Therefore, in the circumstances discussed above as there appears a careless conduct of the opposite parties 2&3 with supine in-differnce to comply with the promise made to replace defective TV with new TV and keeping up in its tall promises the deficient conduct of opposite parties and there by the deficiency of service to the complainant is made out and hence there remains every bonafides in the complainant’s case and there by his entitleness for the reliefs sought.
14. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 2&3 to replace the ONIDA Colour TV at the address of the complainant under a valid warranty binding the manufacturer and the dealer taking back the defective TV, if not already taken from the complainant and the opposite parties are also to pay Rs.1, 000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. In default, the opposite parties 2&3 to pay to the complainant the cost of said TV i.e 12,100/- with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of purchase till realization along with Rs.1,000/- as costs. Time granted for opposite parties 2&3 for complying the supra awarded order is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open court this the 23 rd day of December, 2004.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
