BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 330/1999 Filed on 07.07.1999
Dated : 31.05.2011
Complainant :
P. Mohammed Ismail, Aramam,Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 607.
(By adv. S. Vijayakumaran)
Opposite parties :
Akai Electric Co. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, 12-14, Higashi-kojiya, 2 Chome, Ohta-ku Tokyo, Japan.
Baron International Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, P.O. Box 7961, Zenith Building, Race Course Road, Bombay-400 034.
Baron International Ltd., Akai Servicing Centre, Marappalam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. V. Satheesh Kumar)
The Proprietor, Bismi Enterprises, Attingal Road, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 607.
(By adv. Nalanchira P. Krishnankutty)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.04.2011, the Forum on 31.05.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Facts of the case are as follows: Complainant purchased an Akai T.V from the 4th opposite party who is the local dealer, on payment of Rs. 20,750/- on 09.05.1995. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer, the 2nd opposite party is the Indian distributor and 3rd opposite party is the state distributor. After working for six months, the TV was found defective and remote control is found defunct. Thereafter, 4 different parts were replaced and serviced by the 4th opposite party. And on 19.03.1999 the T.V stopped working and it was examined and found that the LOT is not working. The representative of the 4th opposite party collected Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant as value of LOT, but he never turned up to repair it. Now the T.V is kept idle in the house of the complainant in an open dismantled condition. Complainant wants refund of price with compensation and costs.
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties have filed versions. They contend that the T.V has given uninterrupted service for 4 continuous years, and it is quite natural that after use of 4 years, the parts will develop fatigue and disrepair. Whenever there were defects, the servicemen of the opposite party attended the same and repair carried out. No amount has been collected to purchase a new LOT. Complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The following points are raised for trial:
Whether the T.V set is bad due to any manufacturing defect?
Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) to (iv):- This Forum had heard this case before and passed an order on 27.06.2001. But the 4th opposite party preferred appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission as Appeal No. 635/2001. In that appeal the 4th opposite party raised a contention that the complaint is barred by limitation as per I.A No. 731/2007. The appellate commission allowed the I.A and remitted the case to this Forum for considering the question of limitation with a direction to give opportunity to the complainant to file a re-joinder if the complainant so chooses to resist the contention regarding the limitation and parties are allowed to adduce additional evidence if they choose to substantiate the contention of limitation. The state commission directed this Forum to dispose of the OP considering afresh the respective cases pleaded by them. But after remanding the case for fresh disposal, the 4th opposite party never turned up to adduce any evidence or file any petition regarding 'limitation' before this Forum. We have given ample opportunities to both the parties, but they never turned up to adduce any evidence. The complainant filed this complaint within the prescribed limit, i.e; within 2 years from the date of cause of action. At last on 19.03.1999 the said T.V became defective and the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum on 07.07.1999, i.e; within 4 months. On a perusal of available evidence, we find that the complaint is not barred by limitation.
In this case the complainant has been examined as PW1 and from his side 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. 4th opposite party has been examined as DW1 and the commissioner was examined as CW1. The report of the commissioner has been marked as Ext. C1. Ext. P1 is the cash bill dated 09.05.1995 issued by the 4th opposite party. As per this bill the price of the TV is Rs. 20,750/-. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext. P3 series are the postal receipts of advocate notice. Ext. P4 is the returned unserved notice of the 2nd opposite party. Ext. P5 is the returned unserved notice of the 1st opposite party. One of the allegations raised by the complainant is that the T.V became defective after 6 months of its purchase date, but he has not produced any evidence regarding the same. Another contention is that it has some manufacturing defects. But the complainant could not prove that allegation. As per the commission report, the commissioner stated that volume control and channel selection knobs are in damaged condition, LOT is found missing from the printed circuit board of the T.V set and other components are tested and they are in working condition. Nowhere in the report it was mentioned that the defects occurred due to manufacturing defects. At the time of cross examination the commissioner answered that “volume control and channel selection knobs in damaged condition എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് manufacturing defect അല്ല”. And he also deposed that “ടി T.V-യില് vital ആയി ഉണ്ടാകേണ്ട part ഇല്ലായിരുന്നു. ടി part ഇട്ടാല് ടി T.V work ചെയ്യാനാണ് സാദ്ധ്യത”. From these depositions and report of the commissioner we find that the defects are not due to the manufacturing defect of the T.V. And moreover the complainant has been using the T.V for more than 4 years. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the defects occurred within the warranty period. From the commission report and pleadings of the complainant we find that the defect of the T.V is due to the non-availability of LOT. It is the duty of the opposite parties to make the availability of spare parts in the market. In this case LOT is a very important part in the printed circuit board, for transmission of pictures. Due to the non-availability of LOT the T.V remains in an idle condition. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The T.V has been used by the complainant for 4 years. The price of the T.V is Rs. 20,750/-. In the circumstance we reduce 25% of the value of the T.V from the purchase price towards depreciation and the balance is to be paid. As the T.V is kept idle for more than 2 years we allow Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and also costs is fixed as Rs. 2,000/-.
In the result, an order is passed as follows: The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,187/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month failing which 9% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount 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 31st day of May 2011.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 330/1999
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - P. Mohammed Ismail
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Cash bill dated 09.05.1995 issued by the 4th opposite party.
P2 - Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to opposite
parties.
P3 - Postal receipts
P4 - Returned unserved notice of the 2nd opposite party.
P5 - Returned unserved notice of the 1st opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - M.A. Backer
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
V COURT EXHIBIT:
CW1 - Mohandas
C1 - Commission Report
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
