IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 30th day of September, 2016.
Filed on 05..07..2016
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
IN
CC/No.227/2016
Between
Complainant: Opposite party:-
Sri Sunil Sreejith Traders
Palliveli Near Police Station
Mayithara. P. O Cherthala
Charamangalam
Cherthala
O R D E R
SMT.JASMINE.D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a TV from the opposite party manufactured by Sansui on 19/8/2015 for an amount of Rs. 12, 800/-. The product became defective and complainant registered a compliant on 30/09/2015 with ID No. 16115433. The product has been repaired but again it became functionless and the complainant again registered a complaint on 1/10/15 with ID No. 16115499. Even though the TV was repaired the same defect persisted and registered another complaint on 26/10/15 with ID No. 2610150211. But the same was not repaired properly the same defect persist and finally on 16/4/2016 the complainant entrusted TV to the opposite party for repairing but the opposite party has not repaired and returned the TV so far. The product has 1 year warranty and defect arose within the warranty period. The complainant could not use the TV due to the repeated defect. According to the complainant opposite party has issued defective product to the complainant and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party seeking refunded to the price of the TV together with compensation and cost.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared before the
Forum but not filed any version and also absent for the subsequent proceedings hence opposite party was set Ex-parte.
3. The complainant produced 2 documents which were marked as Ext A1-A2.
4. Considering the allegation of the complainant this Forum as raised the following issues for considering:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
5 . Issues 1&2:- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a TV from the opposite party on 19-08-15 for an amount of Rs 12, 800/- . The product has 1 year warranty, the product became defective on many occassions and a number of complainants were made by the complainant to the opposite party. Even though the opposite party repaired it many times but the defect was not rectified properly the defect in the TV continued to persist. Finally the product became defective on 16/4/2015 and entrusted to the opposite party for repair, but the product was not repaired and returned so far. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this compliant.
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext. A1-A2 were marked. Ext. A1 is the original tax invoice of the dtd. 19/8/15. Ext A2 is the copy of warranty card. According to the complainant he is not in a position to watch the TV properly due to the defect. The defect was noticed immediately after date of purchase of the product. The complainant purchased the product on 19-8-2015 and the defect was noticed on 30/9/2015 ie after 1month from the date of purchase of the product. The product has 1 year warranty. According to the complainant the product became defective on many occasions and he made a number of complaints before the opposite party and finally on 16/4/2016 the complainant entrusted the product to the opposite party for repairing but it was not repaired and returned so far. The product is under warranty and now the product is with the opposite party. According to the complainant he registered a number of complainants before the opposite party with in 7 month from the date of purchase of the product. The product is defective from the very beginning of the purchase itself. According to the complainant, the complainant had registered the complaint in the TV to the opposite party dtd. 30/9/2015 with ID NO. 16115433, 1/10/2015 with 16115499 and 26/10/2015 with ID No 2610150211 and on 27/10/2015 with ID No. 2710150012. This clearly indicates that the supplied TV is not functioning properly. When a person purchases a TV from a reputed dealer he does not expect such defects. So the opposite party is liable to repair or to replace the product. Since the opposite party failed to repair the product they have committed deficiency in service so the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complainant is allowed the opposite party is directed to replace the TV with the new one of the same model / price along with fresh warranty. The opposite party is further direct to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and RS.1000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied with within 1 month from the receipt of this order, failing which opposite party is directed to refund the price of the TV Rs 12, 800/- with 9% interest from the date of order till realization to the complainant.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the Complainant:
Ext.A1 - Retail Invoice Dtd 19/08/2015
Ext.A2 - warranty card Dtd 19/08/2015
Evidence of the opposite party: Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Comprd by:-
