IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 173-2010 DATED 24.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant H.G.Shantharaj, <br /> S/o Late Garalapuraiah, <br /> R/at D.No.695, II Stage, Vinayamarga 10th Cross, Siddarthnagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. H.V.N., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Manager,<br /> Videocon Industries Limited, 14 KM Stona, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Chiteagaan Taluk, Paithan District, Aurangabak-431105.<br /> 2. The Proprietor,<br /> Mahaveer Electronics, No.537, III Cross, K.T.Street, Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri.A.M.,Advocate for O.P.1 and S.J.S., Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 28.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13.05.2010<br /> Date of order : 24.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 11 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of warranty period, claiming compensation, cost of the repair charges and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. The first opposite party in the version has denied the extent of guarantee period, alleged by the complainant and further, it is stated that, warranty upto 5 years is for picture tube only. Also, it is stated that, the complainant was asked to supply purchase receipt along with warranty card to get back the amount.<br /> <br /> 3. The second opposite party denying deficiency in service contend that, first opposite party has to attend the faults and rectifications. <br /> <br /> 4. Respective parties have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the point for our consideration is, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. The fact that, the complainant has purchased a Television set manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party-dealer under a scheme paying Rs.22,100/- through cheque dated 15.05.2008, is not in dispute.<br /> <br /> 8. Case of the complainant is that, in Bangalore Mirror newspaper dated 02.05.2008, there was an advertisement to the effect “Maano Ya Na Maano”, a scheme with warrant for 5 years for the Television. Believing the advertisement, complainant purchased the TV. The main dispute between the parties is, period of warranty. The complainant claims, it is 5 years, whereas first opposite party contend, it was only one year and five years was in respect of picture tube only. In support of their respective contentions, complainant and first opposite party have produced documents. In the Bangalore Mirror newspaper dated 2nd May 2008, there is an advertisement as claimed by the complainant under the caption “Maano Ya Na Maano” and certain scheme is stated. On the right side of the advertisement, picture of TV and the price and other details are mentioned. In the bold letters below the picture of the TV, it is mentioned “5 years warranty”. The fact that, the first opposite party company had given such advertisement, is not in dispute. On other hand, first opposite party has also produced a format of application, wherein it is mentioned that, the customer has to pay cost of spares and five years warranty is extended on colour picture tube only. This fact was not mentioned in the advertisement referred to above. It is the definite and specific case of the complainant, looking advertisement referred to above, believing that the warrant is for period of 5 years, he purchased the TV manufactured by first opposite party through the second opposite party-dealer. In view of the advertisement referred to above, the case put-forth by the complainant, shall have to be believed and accepted. Otherwise, the act on the part of the first opposite party in publishing such advertisement to attract the customers, will have to be termed as Unfair trade practice. What is mentioned in the proforma-application, now the first opposite party has produced, that could have been mentioned in the advertisement also, so that, the buyers could have come to know about the fact as now contended.<br /> <br /> 9. It is fact that, towards repairs of the TV, the complainant has spent Rs.1,102/-. In view of the warranty that, the complainant has claimed and considering other facts, complainant was not legally bound to pay the said amount and as such, he is entitled for refund of the same. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. But, it is on higher side. Considering the facts and the material on record, deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties has been established. Accordingly, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. Both opposite parties jointly and severally shall refund Rs.1,102/- to the complainant, within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> <br /> 3. Further, both opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused, within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Also, opposite parties to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 24th June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />