BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 08/08/2011
Date of Order : 31/07/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 428/2011
Between
Solomon Paul, | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Paul Mondhern, Santom Colony, Mundamveli. P.O., Kochi – 682 006. |
| (By Adv. Rajesh Thomas & Naseer A.M. Advocates, 41/3792 C 2, 1st floor, Carmel Centre, Banerji Road, Kochi - 18) |
And
1. The Systems, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Ravipuram Junction, M.G. Road, Kochi – 681 015, Rep. by its Authorized person. 2. M/s. Haier Appliances (India) P. Ltd., B-1/A-14, Mohan co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044, Rep. by its Authorized Officer. 3. The Manager/Officer, Authorizer Haier TV Service Centre, Khadeeja Building, Near North Railway Station, Ernakulam – 682 035. |
| (Op.pty 1 absent)
(Op.pts 2 & 3 by Adv. Sabu S. (Kallooramoola), Amples Building, Amulya Street, Ernakulam - 18) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Stating shortly, the case of the complainant is as follows :
On 31-08-2010, the complainant purchased a flat colour television from the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 5,600/-, which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. One year warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party. On 20-09-2010, the complainant noticed the development of picture defect in the T.V. On intimation, the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 3rd opposite party service centre. The 3rd opposite party took the T.V. for repairs and got the same repaired after 2 days. 6 weeks thereafter, the T.V. again became malfunctioning. The 3rd opposite party rectified that defect as well. In January 2011, the T.V. became defective and useless. Though the complainant intimated the 1st and 3rd opposite parties, they failed to respond to the same. On 02-07-2011, the T.V. became defunct. At that juncture, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to refund the price of the T.V., they failed to do so. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the T.V. with interest together with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite parties 2 and 3 :-
The complainant purchased a T.V. set from the 1st opposite party on 31-08-2010. The complainant informed the 3rd opposite party that there was complaint in the T.V. The 3rd opposite party immediately attended to the T.V. and found that the tuning of the T.V. set was not proper. The 3rd opposite party rectified the defect of the T.V. set and returned the same to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the 3rd opposite party only in July 2011. The service man went to the residence of the complainant. But the complainant did not permit him to check the T.V. set. He requested the opposite parties to replace the T.V. set with a new one. The company official informed him that the replacement can be done only after verifying the T.V. set. The question of replacement will come only, if the defects are incurable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Despite service of notice of this complaint, the 1st opposite party did not appear in the Forum for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked on his side. The witness for the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties was examined as DW1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the T.V. set from the opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 goes to show that the complainant purchased a flat colour T.V. from the 1st opposite party, which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant, time and again, he had to approach the 3rd opposite party service centre to get the defects of the T.V. set repaired. The opposite parties contended that the defects if any of the T.V. set can be rectified by repairing the same.
6. Admittedly on several occasions, the 3rd opposite party rectified the defects of the T.V. set and finally in July 2011 the T.V. set became defunct. On intimation, the technician of the 3rd opposite party visited the residence of the complainant and tried to rectify the defect. However, the complainant did not permit him to examine the T.V. set, probably because he was fed up with the repeated complaints and repairs of the same. Since the opposite parties did not dispute the recurring defects of the T.V., we are of the view that the same suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to replace the defective T.V. with a new one according to the choice of the complainant at the prev ailing cost of the same.
7. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely, compensation and costs are not awarded.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the disputed T.V. set with a new one according to the choice of the complainant, whereas the complainant shall pay any excess cost for the new piece chosen by him off setting Ext. A1. The complainant is directed to return the defective T.V. set to the opposite parties simultaneously, the opposite parties shall bear the cost of transportation of the same.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July 20 12
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the invoice dt. 31-08-2010 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Solomon Paul – complainant. |
DW1 | :: | Rajesh Michael – witness of the op.pty |
=========
