This is a discussion on Viedocon within the Television forums, part of the Electronics Appliances category; consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/70 Jose,S/o Kuriakose,Mooppattil House,Edavaka P.O,Mananthavady ...........Appellant(s) Vs. Viedocon Industries Ltd.,Branch office,2 nd Floor,5/2671,A ,Corner Space Building,Cherooty nagar ...
- 02-13-2010, 11:09 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/70
Jose,S/o Kuriakose,Mooppattil House,Edavaka P.O,Mananthavady
Viedocon Industries Ltd.,Branch office,2 nd Floor,5/2671,A ,Corner Space Building,Cherooty nagar ,Kozhikode
General Manager,Videocon Industries Ltd,Auto cars Compound,Adalath Road,Aurangabad
The Proprietor,Deepthi Vision,Thalasseri road,Mananthavady
1. K GHEEVARGHESE
2. SAJI MATHEW
By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the purchaser of a Television Set of Akai brand at a price of Rs.10,000/- on 28.6.2008. The purchase was done in the exchange of the old and used T.V owned by the complainant. The T.V set had a warranty of one year and the warranty extended to the colour picture tube for two years. The T.V became inoperative on 16.3.2009 and the same was informed to the 1st Opposite Party. In different occasions the 1st Opposite Party was complained. The defect of the T.V and finally on 05.05.2009 T.V was entrusted to the 1st Opposite Party to get it repaired. The T.V entrusted to the 1st Opposite Party was not repaired and given back even after the laps of 2 months period. Which caused heavy loss and hardships to the Complainant. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.10,000/- the price of the T.V along with cost and compensation.
2. The 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the T.V and the 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of the T.V. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the price of T.V Rs.10,000/- along with cost and compensation.
3. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed version in brief it is as follows:- The purchase of the Akai T.V for an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the 1st Opposite Party is under the offer on exchange of the old T.V. The Complainant was guided by the readiness and willingness to purchase the brand new Akai T.V in exchange of the old T.V. The T.V sold to the complainant had a warranty of repairing of one year and extended warranty of two years for the colour picture tube. The averment of the Complainant that the T.V was not working from 16.3.2009 onwards is incorrect. The non function of the T.V was informed to the 1st Opposite Party on 24.3.2009 and the reason for the same was due to lightening. On 25.3.2009 itself the service personal from the company attended the T.V and found that the complaint of T.V was due to the impact of lightening. The Complainant was also informed that in destruction of the parts caused due to lightening, the repair and replacement do not cover the warranty conditions. Any how after repair and replacing of the parts of the T.V it is kept in the shop of the 1st Opposite Party on 27.5.2009 on working condition. The same was also informed through telephone to the Complainant.
4. The T.V purchased by the Complainant in the exchange offer was free from any manufacturing defects. Any malfunctioning of the T.V if evented, upon information from the Complainant it was rectified without any delay. The natural calamities if caused in destruction to the T.V it is not covered under warranty which is exemplified in the terms of warranty. The Opposite Parties are not liable for the delay in the non availability of components. The delay caused in the repair of T.V was only due to the non availability of the components however the T.V set was repaired and kept in the shop from 27.5.2009 onwards. The Complainant on other hand is not ready to take back T.V which is repaired. More over the Opposite Party has replaced the components which are damaged in the natural calamities like lightening. There is no deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party the complaint is not born out with bonafied reasons and it is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service?
Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the Complainant and 1st Opposite Party. Exts.A1 to A3, Exts. X1 and X1(a) to X1(d) are the documents produced for the Complainant.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the T.V set purchased by him in exchange offer on payment of Rs.10,000/- and the old T.V which was in use of the Complainant was not repaired and given back to the Complainant in the warranty period. The Complainant has no plea in the Complainant that T.V set is having manufacturing defect. The complaint of the T.V set was in the warranty period. On 16.3.2009 the T.V set of the Complainant became inoperative. On examination of the Complainant it is admitted that upon information of the complainant to the 1st Opposite Party on 24.3.2009. The 1st Opposite Party attended the complaint and the T.V set was taken for repair on 25.3.2009. The T.V set was inoperative because of the complaint of picture tube and other components. The Complainant already admitted that the T.V set was repaired and kept in shop and it was also informed to the Complainant over telephone. The warranty conditions further amplifies that the damages by the natural calamities do not cover the terms of warranty. The delay in the repair of the T.V set is because of the non availability of the components required according to the 1st Opposite Party. We are in the opinion that the cause of delay in giving back the repaired T.V set is unreasonable. The claim of the Complainant for the refund of the amount spent for the purchase of the T.V cannot be considered in the absence of any plea for manufacturing defect. The Complainant is to be given back the T.V in working condition along with cost.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st Opposite Party is directed to give back the Complainant the T.V set entrusted for repair in working condition along with cost of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and Fifty only) within one month from the date of this order.Regards,
Click here to Become Premium Member
- 02-13-2010, 11:20 AM #2Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/130
M P BALAN
PROPRIETOR/MANAGER,LEELA SONS HOME APPLIANCES
1. G Yadunadhan
2. Jayasree Kallat
3. L Jyothikumar
By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The complainant had purchased one 21” Videocon T.V. and stabilizer along with Dish Antenna from the opposite party on 1-9-08. Opposite party had convinced the complainant that the dish antenna was made out of quality material and it will last for 5 years without rusting. Inspite of the assurance by the opposite party regarding the dish antenna it got rust and was completely destroyed within the month of purchase. Complainant had reported this fact to the opposite party. Complainant had requested opposite party to rectify the defects of the dish antenna. Opposite party did not respond to the request of the complainant. Opposite party had unnecessarily delayed the repair work. Because of the non functioning of the dish antenna the complainant was not able to use the T.V. or view any programme in the T.V. Complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for not rectifying the defects in the dish antenna and there by causing hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint seeking relief along with compensation.
Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are explicitly admitted. Opposite party admits the fact that complainant had purchased a Videocon T.V., stabilizer and dish antenna and accessories from the opposite party. Opposite party denies the fact that they had assured 5 years guarantee for the dish antenna. Opposite party denies the averment in the complaint that they have not responded to complainant’s request to repair the dish antenna. The complainant did not allow the mechanic of opposite party to repair the dish antenna. The complainant has not given Rs.904/- which is due to the opposite party. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party has been doing business in dish antenna for about 15 years. Till this time no complaints has come out from any of the customers except the complainant. The complainant has filed this case to evade from paying the balance amount of Rs.904/-. As there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party, opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite party.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Videocon T.V., stabilizer and dish antenna along with accessories from the opposite party. Within one month of purchase the dish antenna got rusted and became non functioning. According to the complainant he informed the defect of the dish antenna several times to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not repair the antenna. Complainant’s case is that because of the defective dish antenna he could not view programmes in the T.V. Opposite party in their version had stated that opposite party’s mechanic was sent to the complainant’s house but the complainant did not allow to repair the dish antenna. From the evidence and version of the opposite party Forum has come to the conclusion that the dish antenna is not functioning. Hence Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the dish antenna repaired and make it functioning.
In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to make the dish antenna defect free and functioning. Opposite party is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.Regards,
Click here to Become Premium Member
- 10-14-2011, 06:46 PM #3Junior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
I had purchased one Integra LCD TV of VIDEOCON in JULY 2007 from authorised dealer QRS in my home town and had a nightmare till this day. It got defective 7 to 8 times and the latest incident was that it was unattended by Videocon for the last 4 months. I had followed up every week but no response. I do enclose my complaint made to Videocon through their service centres and Dealer. please read on...
Pin – 689121
Recent ref: 1. COC 2007110281 2. COC 1003 110334
3. COC 2711100369 4. COC 0310090550
Sub: Replacement of defective LCD sold to me vide Grand name ‘Videocon Integra’
I had purchased a Videocon LCD vide brand name ‘Integra’ from your authorized dealer, QRS / Chengannur Branch. I was inspired by the audio-visual and print advertisements made by your company regarding the quality of your products. I had exchanged my ‘SAMSUNG’ brand colour TV, which was in good working condition, in exchange of your product, believing that your product is reliable, good and had value for money, completely believing your advertisements.
In the very first month of the purchase itself, the remote control of the TV set had turned defective and I had to repeatedly approach the dealer for the rectification. The dealer, had tried to rectify the remote twice, but again it would turn defective within a few days time. Finally they had to replace the same with a new one.
The worst part of the incident was yet to come. When the remote was replaced still the problem persisted. I had again approached the dealer and registered the complaint but the response from your service centre at Alleppey was extremely poor and disgusting.
After persistent efforts your staff had come and rectified the same. My misery was not to be ended. Next month, again the TV set stopped working. Again I had to run from pillar to post to get it rectified.
In short, from the date of purchase, till this date I had to approach the dealer and your service centre at least 8 times to get my TV set repaired within 2 short spans of time . Many times I had to pay also. It was as if I had taken a loan from Videocon and paying it back by monthly installments.
Each time, I had written to QRS in their complaint book and spoken to your service personnel to replace the set as this was causing untold inserts and inconveniences a part from the mental agony caused by not meeting my primary requirement of information and entertainment. During the long gaps I was denied the right of myself and family of the access to information through audio-visual media which satiates our quench for information, education, entertainment etc , though I had richly paid an amount of Rs…19000/- for your TV set, which was on the higher side for a TV at that time, believing that it had quality attuned to its pricing
To add fuel to fire, your service personnel, who had visited my residence twice for repair had behaved in a rude manner, abused me in front of my family and insulted me when I had pointed out the repeated failure of the TV set. Last time to my utter shock, he had refused to attend my complaint also.
I had to lodge my complaint again at QRS and their staff had informed that they had promptly intimated your office. After my insistent queries one of your staff at Alleppey had called one over phone and teased me our phone and told that the Videocon company would not attend your set as it was beyond repair. He was mocking at me and questioning the dignity and integrity of me as a consumer. Then I had to call your branch manager (?) Mr.Praveen reportedly at Alleppey and I had informed him of all these facts and about the rude, negligent and irresponsible behaviour of your customer support / service staff. Though he had promised to take swift action and provide me a feed back, despite his good manners and patient hearing , no response have been received so far. Kike Manager…like staff ……
I had been deprived of my and my family’s information, entertainment and knowledge needs for all these months and especially during Onam season. Further I am paying for my cable connection, still unable to get any results.
Now, I believe you got a clear picture of the harassment from your staff and defect of the product you had sold to me and the resultant inconveniences.
It may also be noted that both your web and e mail address to lodge complaints are not working at all!!
With your vast experience, you must be aware of the rights of a consumer and available quasi – judicial and legal remedies. Being employed in the customer care and consumer claim department of a larger public organization, I am fully confident of a legal remedy and provisions for compensation for mental agony and inconvenience to a consumer solely due to the defect of a product sold for a consideration and deficiency in the services of your personnel.
However, at this point of time I wouldn’t like to move the consumer court as I feel that I have to exhaust all probable grievance redressal machinery available with your organization before seeking legal remedies. Hence this letter. I would like to remind you that non responsiveness to customer complaints is also a deficiency in service
As such I request you to replace the defective TV LCD set with a good one having the same value and facilities or refund the entire amount collected from me with an interest of 12 p.a. as the consideration of your product , within 15 days of receipt of this notice.
Failure to do so may attract penal interest on the price, compensation for the mental agony , inconveniences and cost of all further proceedings from your side.
I do quote your philosophy as declared by you in your web site. Yet it is shameful to note that your customer complaints web page is still under repair… and your service beyond imagination. Please read through and think….
“To delight and deliver beyond expectation…”:
This segment not only underlines the importance of the ultimate goal - customer satisfaction (‘delight’) and ultimate target - the customer, but also of intermediate processes and principals, which have contributed to building a robust, dependable Videocon value chain (‘deliver’). As a result of its focus on developing loyal customers and reliable associates, Videocon is able to exceed expectations.