CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:27/09/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/148/2016
Ranjith,
S/o.Rajan,
Melazhi Thottathil Veedu, : Complainant
Tholannur, Amsom Desom,
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad, Kerala.
(By Advs.Michael Scaria & T.V.Krishnadas)
Vs
- The Regional Manager,
South Regional Office,
Visit/Right Philips India Ltd.,
Sunnyside, C Block,
-
Shefi Muhammed Road,
-
- The Manager,
Next Retail India Ltd.,
Hotel International, 18/24(6),
Surya City Building,
G.B.Road, Palakkad-678 001.
Palakkad, Kerala.
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
In this case, the complainant bought on 02/10/2014 from 2nd opposite party’s shop at Palakkad a 32” Philips LCD TV manufactured by 1st opposite party company for ready cash of Rs.28,700/-. At the time of purchase of the above TV from the 2nd opposite party shop, the 2nd opposite party has given the complainant a receipt in his name in their letter pad; the complainant has also been made to believe by the 2nd opposite party at the time of purchase of the TV that the TV carries two years replacement warranty and one year repair warranty which was also mentioned in the receipt mentioned above given to the complainant. The TV bought by the complainant developed a complaint four months ago which was informed to the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly, the TV was inspected by a person from Palakkad Service Centre and as per inspection; set up box in complaint was replaced. But when the person from the above said service centre repaired the TV, a hole on the bottom part of the TV developed and also he caused damage to the TV by breaking the TV stand clip.
Even after repair mentioned above the said TV was not functioning. Even though the complainant informed this and all the other facts to the opposite parties, they were not prepared to repair the TV correctly or to replace the TV as per the warranty, pleaded by the complainant. Opposite parties have no right to work in that manner and all the above acts are grave deficiencies in service which should be provided legally to the complainant by the opposite parties. As a result of these aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, huge financial difficulties and irreparable mental agony were caused to the complainant.
Stating all these facts registered lawyer notices dated 18/08/2016 were sent to opposite parties 1&2 separately; but till date no reply notices were received from opposite parties 1&2. The complainant pleads that as per the replacement guarantee, old TV should be taken back and in its place a new TV should be given to the complainant for which necessary orders should be given to opposite parties 1&2; otherwise for the deficiency in service which should be lawfully given, financial loss and mental agony caused to the complainant as a result of deficiency in service, Rs.30,000/- and the price of the TV Rs.28,700/-thus totaling Rs.58,700/- should be ordered to be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties and thus render justice, prayed by the complainant.
The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to opposite parties 1&2. Although notices were sent and served on opposite parties 1&2, their names were called absent and therefore they were set ex-parte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Exts.A1 and A2 series were marked from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties 1&2 were set ex-parte.
In this case the following issues are considered:
- Whether there is any negligence and/or deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1&2
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
The complainant purchased on 02/10/2014 from the 2nd opposite party 32” Philips LCD TV manufactured by the 1st opposite party for Rs.28,700/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand and seven hundred only) for ready cash as per Ext.A1.
According to the complainant, he purchased the TV because he was made to believe by the 2nd opposite party at the time of purchase of the TV that it carried two years replacement warranty and one year repair warranty as per Ext.A1. The said TV developed a complaint four months ago which was informed to the 2nd opposite party and was inspected by a person from Palakkad Service Centre; as per inspection the complaint was seen in the set up box which was replaced. Complainant pleaded that after repair, the TV developed a hole on its bottom part and the person who has repaired the TV caused damage to it by breaking its stand clip and even after repair the said TV was not working. Even though all these facts were informed to the opposite parties, they were not prepared to correctly repair the TV or to replace the TV.
From the documentary evidence filed by the complainant, it is clear to us that he purchased on 02.10.2014 a 32’’ Philips LCD TV and it carried a two year warranty. We observe that the TV became non working during the two year warranty period and the opposite party could not make it in a working condition so that the complainant is prevented from watching his TV and enjoying TV programmes which caused to him mental agony. At the same time, we also view that the complainant has failed to take out an expert commission and get an expert opinion about the defect of the disputed TV. Hence we observe that commission of deficiency in service by the opposite parties cannot be fully proved by the complainant. Under these circumstances the complaint is partly allowed.
1st and 2nd opposite parties are hereby ordered to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for mental agony suffered by him and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) towards litigation expenses incurred by the complainant.
This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order;
Otherwise interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of the order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this, the 1st day of July 2017. Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Photocopy of the receipt dated 2/10/2014
Ext.A2 series – Two acknowledgement cards, two receipts, and true copy of lawyer notices
sent to the opposite parties
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/-
