Kerala

Idukki

CC/222/2018

Pradeep Sukumaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bismi appliances - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :13/12/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of June 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 222/2018

Between

Complainant : Pradeep Sukumaran,

Kurukkankunnel House,

Edayar P.O., Koothattukulam.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party :1 . The Manager,

Bismi Appliences,

Kalarickal Bazar,

Thodupuzha P.O., Thodupuzha.

2 . The Managing Director,

PE Electronics Ltd.,

Techweb Centre, New Link Road,

Oshiwara Mumbai 400 102.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased a TV from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party on 18/09/16 by paying Rs.18,800/-. At the time of purchase the manufacturer offered 5 years festival warranty and the opposite parties confirmed after sale service free of cost. While so, the TV got damaged in the month of October 2018. Immediately the matter was informed to the first opposite party and first opposite party registered a complaint with the second opposite party. Thereafter one technician from the second opposite party inspected the TV and found that its panel board is damaged. He further stated that he will replace the panel board when the manufacturer provides it. Thereafter a long period the complainant waited for this and on enquiry he came to know that the company stopped the production of the panel board of this model TV.

 

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

 

Complainant further contented that, at the time of purchase opposite parties offered 5 years warranty to the product and opposite parties are bound to produce its spare parts at least in the warranty period. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, in this act of the opposite parties complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged TV to a new one or else to return the purchase price of the TV along with compensation and cost.

 

Even though the notice issued from this office served to the opposite parties, opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and contest the matter. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 are set exparte.

 

Exparte evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. The sales invoice and warranty card are marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 respectively.

 

Heard,

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have perused the documents. It is seen that the allegation levelled against the opposite parties are not challenged. It is an admitted fact that the manufacturer offered 5 years warranty and after sale prompt free service. As per records the damages occur to the TV is within its warranty period. Hence manufacturer, the second opposite party is liable to redress the grievances of the complainant.

 

On the basis of above discussion complaint allowed. The second opposite party is directed to repair the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant or else return the purchase price of the TV as per Ext.P1, along with Rs.2000/- as the litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of

 

(Cont.....3)

 

-3-

 

the copy of this order, failing which the purchase price of the TV bears 12% interest from the date of default till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of June, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Pradeep Sukumaran

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The sales invoice

Ext.P2 - The warranty card

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT