BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 167/2012 Filed on 31.05.2012
ORDER DATED: 31.01.2017
Complainant:
Sanal Kumar, Sree Nidhi, Archana Nagar, Samual Gardens, Pongummoodu, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. B.N. Mangalan)
Opposite party:
Udaya Agencies, Kazhakuttom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. A. Santhosh Kumar)
This C.C having been heard on 08.12.2016, the Forum on 31.01.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER
Case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant purchased T.V stand from the opposite party on 17.05.2011 vide invoice No. 521 for Rs. 11,500/- for fixing the complainant’s Sony LCD flat TV in his home. On 28.04.2012 morning while the complainant was watching the programmes in TV suddenly the rod fixing the TV with the stand was broken and TV fell down and caused severe damages to the T.V. The complainant informed this matter to the opposite party. But there is no response from the opposite party. On verifying, the complainant came to know that the TV stand given by the opposite party is not a new one. The complainant later informed the authorized service centre of Sony TV M/s Madonna Sales & Service to repair his T.V. On inspecting the stand the service centre authority informed the complainant that the TV was properly fixed with stand but the stand was broken due to poor quality. On 11.05.2012 TV set of the complainant was repaired and the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 10,728/- being the cost of repairs. The complaint occurred due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party by giving an old, poor quality stand suppressing this fact as a new one. The complainant at the time of purchasing the TV stand informed his requirement to the opposite party. The TV stand was selected to the complainant by the opposite party based on his requirement. Hence complainant approached this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 11,500/- i.e. the cost of the TV stand and interest @ 18% from the date of complaint till the realization of the amount and to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,228/- being the repair charges of the TV which was paid by the complainant to its authorized dealer.
Opposite party filed version contending as follows: The opposite party is engaged in the trade of electrical, electronic and home appliances and is a reputed dealer of all known national and international manufacturing companies. The opposite party is keeping good relationship with manufacturers, wholesale dealers, clearing and forwarding agents and customers in and around the country. There are various products of same nature with various price range according to the standard and quality. The customers are free to select the items according to their needs and budget. As regards to T.V stands there are ever so many models varying with prices according to their quality. This complainant might have selected a T.V stand according to his choice to suit his budget. He was satisfied with the quality at the time of purchase after verifying the product. There was no inducement or persuasion from the part of the opposite party for the purchase of TV stand. Moreover there is no warranty for the product and it was not a branded one. The story of breaking the rod of the T.V stand and consequent fall of the TV while watching the T.V is a cooked up story. There may be ever so many reasons for the fall of the T.V. The opposite party is not to be held liable. The complainant has never informed the matter to the opposite party and the allegations in contrary are emphatically denied. The opposite party is a reputed dealer for the past so many years. The allegations that the opposite party sold old T.V stand and made the complainant believe that it is a new one are highly defamatory. The trust of the customer is highly necessary for a good business. The opposite party has obtained reputation among the public and even received many awards for his excellent performance in the field of trade. The opposite party is not entitled to pay any amount towards repair of T.V set. The T.V stand was selected by the complainant and not by the opposite party as alleged. No unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Issues raised:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party is proved?
- If so, what are the reliefs for the complainant?
Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 2 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. An expert was appointed from this Forum to ascertain the facts in the complaint and he filed his report, which was marked as Ext. C1. Complainant was examined as PW1. No evidence is adduced by the opposite party to contradict the averments in the complaint. No affidavit is seen filed to substantiate their version. So all the contentions raised in the complaint stands uncontroverted. Moreover, if we go with Ext. C1, the expert report also, it is in favour of the complainant. No objection is seen filed by the opposite party or taken steps to set aside Ext. C1. So Ext. C1 is also unchallenged and we are relying on Ext. C1. Ext. C1 clearly points out that the TV stand was defective and due to that defect, it collapsed which ultimately led to the damage of the LED TV. So for no fault of him, complainant was forced to pay the repair charges of the TV also, which we find that opposite party is liable to refund. The expert pointed out that the TV stand was a defective one and so complainant is eligible for the refund of purchase price also. Since a commission was taken out to ascertain the contentions in the complaint, opposite party is liable to pay the cost for the same which we fix as Rs. 4,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is ordered to pay the complainant Rs. 11,500/- (purchase price of TV stand) + Rs. 10,278/- (repair cost of TV set) along with cost of Rs. 4,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. If this order is not complied within a month, then the entire amount (Rs. 25,778/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of default 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 January 2017.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 167/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Sanal Kumar
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of retail invoice dated 17.05.2011 for Rs. 11,500/-
P2 - Copy of retail invoice/cash memo/bill issued by Madonna Sales &
Service
P3 - Photos
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
V COURT EXHIBIT:
C1 - Commission Report
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
