BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ACT NO. 68 OF 86) AT SRIKAKULAM

P R E S E N T
01. Sri P.Gurunadha Rao,
President, District Consumer Forum,
Srikakulam
02. Smt. D.Raj Kumari, B.A.(Hons.), B.L.,
Lady Member.
03. Sri K.Siva Rama Krishna, B.L.,
Male Member.
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009
C.C.No. 82 / 2008
BETWEEN:
Smt.Piniti Gajalakshmi, W/o.Ramulu, Hindu, House hold duties, aged 40 years,
Door No.3-1-40, Tumma Veedhi, Srikakulam Town, Mandal and District. ...Complainant.

AND:
01)The Proprietor, Meghana Mall, Electronics and Home Appliances, G.T.Road, Srikakulam Town, Mandal, District.
02)L.G. Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., Registered Office-20 A Shivaji Marg,
Molinagar, New Delhi – 110015. …opposite parties.

This complaint coming on 26-11-2008 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri J.Govinda Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri K.Tirumala Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 absent and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
O R D E R
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and facts of the case briefly are as follows:
Complainant purchased a TV and a DVD player from opposite party NO.1 on 8-10-2005. DVD Player was not functioning properly. Complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 replaced the same with another DVD player on 28-10-2005. Subsequently, the TV was also not functioning properly. Complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the TV could be repaired by authorized service centre. The authorized service centre Engineer repaired the same and demanded Rs.475/- towards service charge and complainant paid the same. Opposite parties are bound to effect repairs free of costs for three years as per warranty order issued to the complainant. It is further stated that opposite party No.1 wantonly issued mischievous warranty card of opposite party NO.2 by playing fraud and cheated the complainant. Hence complaint is filed for refund of Rs.457/- being service charges paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2000/-.
2) Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the complainant purchased LG CTV and LG DVD player on 8-10-2005 for Rs.13,600/- from opposite party NO.1 and warranty card was issued to the complainant. Warranty for TV was for 12 months from the date of purchase i.e., 8-10-2005. Complainant approached opposite party NO.1 in March, 2008 for repair of LG CTV and opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that there was authorized service centre and the TV could be repaired there. It is further stated that he did not issue non-genuine warranty card to the complainant with respect to TV.
Opposite party NO.2 remained absent. Notice of complaint to opposite party NO.2 was returned as left.
3) Complainant and opposite party No.1 filed affidavits. Exs.A1 to A14 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of opposite party No.1.

Heard complainant and opposite party NO.1.
Point for consideration is:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4) Point: Complainant filed affidavit with the same facts contained in the complaint. Opposite party NO.1 filed affidavit with the same facts contained in the counter. It is stated in the complaint that opposite party NO.1 wantonly issued mischievous warranty card of opposite party NO.2 by playing fraud and cheated the complainant. Ex.A9 is the so called warranty card allegedly issued by Opposite party No.1. On the face of it, it is mentioned that warranty was valid on LG CTV purchased between 5th January, 2005 to 20th January, 2005 only. Complainant purchased TV from opposite party NO.1 on 8-10-2005. Therefore this warranty of three years is not available to the TV purchased by the complainant from opposite party NO.1 on 8-10-2005. Opposite party No.1 stated in the counter that he did not issue warranty card for three years. Opposite party No.1 specifically stated in the counter that he issued warranty card for one year only from the date of sale i.e,. 8-10-2005 but not for three years. Opposite party NO.1 also filed affidavit to the same effect. There is no evidence to show that opposite party No.1 played fraud on the complainant
5) Ex.A9 warranty card does not contain the date of purchase of TV. The column was kept blank. The warranty applies for the TVs purchased during the period from 5th January, 2005 to 20th January, 2005. Admittedly, complainant did not purchase TV from opposite party No.1 during that period. Therefore the warranty for three years does not apply to the TV purchased by the complainant on 8-10-2005. There is no evidence to show that opposite party No.1 played fraud upon the complainant and issued Ex.A9 warranty card to the complainant. We therefore hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only).
Dictated to the Shorthand Writer and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum on this the 26th day of March, 2009.