Date of filing:17.4.2013.
Date of disposal: 1.1.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER.
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
C.C.No.64 of 2013
Between:
Nuttakki Venu, S/o Viseswara Rao, Hindu, 35 years, Properties & Agriculture, Residing at Gaddamanugu Village, G.Konduru Mandalam, Krishna District. .… Complainant.
AND
1. Videocon Industries Ltd., Rep., by its M.D. 14 Kms Stone, Aurangabad,
Paithan Road, Chitegaon, Tq.Paithan, Dist., Aurangabad – 431 105 (India)
2. Sri Sai Technovision, Rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Authorized Service
Centre, Ground Floor, D.No.32-2-16/A, Chennupati Complex, A.S.Rao Nagar,
Prajasakthi Nagar, Mogalraj Puram, Vijayawada - 10.
3. Sri Srinivasa Electronics, Rep., by its Proprietor, Gaddamanagu Cross Road,
G.Knoduru Village and Mandalam, Krishna District.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 30.12.2013 in the presence of Sri P.Krishna Rao, Counsel for complainant and Sri K.Vara Prasada Rao, Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 remained absent upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the TV CTVCT 2202 model or to pay an amount of Rs.9,400/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization if they fails to replace TV, to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, to award costs of complaint and other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant purchased AKAI colour TV Model No.CTVCT 2202 having Sl.No.410507010306506421 from the 3rd opposite party, which was manufactured by 1st opposite party for Rs.9,400/- on 27.7.2007. At the time of purchase, the 3rd opposite party issued warranty card which denotes seven years warranty on manufacturing defects. While so, the said TV got repairs and immediately the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party who in turn stated that he is retailer only and directed to approach the 2nd opposite party who is authorized servicing center. Accordingly the complainant brought the TV to the 2nd opposite party on 6.2.2013 who issued job card and asked the complainant to come after seven days. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, he stated that the defective parts should be sent to 1st opposite party and asked to come after one week. But when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, he gave evasive replies. On that the complainant got issued registered legal notice dt.2.4.2013 to the opposite parties demanding to rectify the defect or replace TV, but there is no response from them. Due to the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant and his family members could not watch programmes. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party called absent. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint para wise and stated that they have performed their work and informed the same to complainant, but he did not respond and that they are ready to deliver the TV to complainant and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments made in complainant and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. None were examined on behalf of opposite parties and no documents were marked. While the matter is posted for arguments of opposite parties, the complainant filed a memo dt.13.12.2013 stating that the complainant received the said TV from the 2nd opposite party without prejudice to his rights and contentions in Complaint. The said Memo was recorded.
4. Perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in not rectifying the defects in the TV of complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT No.1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to purchasing of TV from the 3rd opposite party by the complainant on 27.7.2007 vide Ex.A1 cash bill for Rs.9,400/-, which was admittedly manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The contention of the opposite party is that the said TV developed repairs and on 6.2.2013 the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party who directed the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party who is authorized service agent of 1st opposite party for repairs. Accordingly he approached the 2nd opposite party who issued Ex.A3 job card. The grievance of the complainant is that in spite of several visits to the service center of the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party did not chosen to return the TV and on the other hand gave evasive replies. Having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A4 and the same was received by opposite parties 1 and 3 under Ex.A5 and A7 and the notice of 2nd opposite party returned unserved under Ex.A6.
7. A perusal of record discloses that the complainant handed over the TV to the 2nd opposite party on 6.2.2013 who issued Ex.A3 job card. The complainant got issued notice on 2.4.2013 i.e. nearly after two months. As such, it is clear that the TV got repairs and was not handed over to the complainant till 2.4.2013 after repair. On the other hand, the 2nd opposite party did not choose to receive the said notice and as such it was returned. The contention of 2nd opposite party is that they have performed the work and informed the same to the complainant. To prove the said version, the 2nd opposite party has not produced any material to show that they have informed the same to the complainant. The said fact for the first time was brought to light by the 2nd opposite party in the version only to set up a defence. Further there is no dispute with regard to the warranty period as the 2nd opposite party mentioned in Ex.A3 job sheet as ‘seven years warranty’.
8. Further a perusal of record discloses that the complainant took the TV from the 2nd opposite party and to that effect, he filed a Memo on 13.12.2013. As such it is clear that the said TV is with the 2nd opposite party for all these 10 months. The 2nd opposite party undertaking the repairing work of TV of complainant and keeping it with him for the period of 10 months go to show that there is some defect in the TV. But the complainant has not stated before this Forum whether the said TV is in good condition or not after repair. Since the complainant has received the TV, he is not entitled for cost of TV or replace of same. But the acts of 2nd opposite party in retaining the TV with him for 10 months to some extent caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant was deprived of enjoying the T.V. for a long period. The 1st opposite party being manufacturer of defective TV and 2nd opposite party being authorized service agent of the 1st opposite party are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and the costs of the complaint.
POINT No.2:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) to the complainant towards compensation for delay and mental agony besides costs of Rs.500/- (Five hundred rupees only). The time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed. The complaint against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 1st day of January, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant:- For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Nuttakki Venu None.
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 27.07.2007 Bill for Rs.9,400/- issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A.2 . . Warranty card.
Ex.A.3 06.02.2013 Job sheet.
Ex.A.4 02.04.2013 Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipts.
Ex.A.5 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.6 . . Unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal acknowledgement.
For the opposite parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
