IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday, the 29th day of March, 2014.
Filed on 25..10..2013
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
IN
CC/No.330/2013
Between
Complainant: Opposite party:-
- Sri.Anoop 1) LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.
Araikkal Veedu Regd Office A-27
Cherthala P.O. Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate
Ward No.IV Muthura Road
Cherthala Municipality New Delhi – 110 044
Cherthala North Rep. by its Manager
Cherthala Taluk
Alappuzha
(By Adv.D.Deepak)
-
Next Retail India Ltd.
Padayanippalam
Cherthala P.O.
Cherthala North Village,
Cherthala Taluk
Alappuzha – 688 014.
O R D E R
SRI.ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant has purchased from the 2nd opposite party an LCD Television set (product code: 14000020995) having product description LCD-LGE-26”-26CS470-HD/USB(JPEG/MP3/HD, on23.01.2013. The product has been manufactured by the 1st opposite party. An extended warranty of 2 years also been given by the 2nd opposite party on payment of Rs.881/-. The product altogether costs Rs.21,300/- (Rupees twenty one thousand and three hundred only) including all taxes. While so on 28.01.2013, the TV has got some mechanical or technical trouble and the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party with the product and the warranty card. The complaint registered as RNA 130128067722. Somehow the defects were cured and the product was delivered accordingly. But again on 05.03.2013 the very same problem again arose and the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had registered the complaint as RNA 130305042665 on the very same day. Since the complaint of the product was due to the material defect in the supplied goods, the complainant demanded for the replacement of the supplied goods. But 2nd opposite party assured that if the complaint again occurred, he will definitely take steps to replace the product. Believing the assurance given by the 2nd party, the complainant returned. After some days, the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and he informed that the defects have been cured and the complainant took the product back to home. Finally, on 17.10.2013, the product got struck by the same complaint and a complaint was registered and the complainant reminded the 2nd opposite party of his previous promise of replacement. But the 2nd opposite party is not ready to replace the defective goods. There is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed seeking direction to replace the defective TV set with a brand one. Notices issued to the opposite parties were served. But they did not turn up. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 were set ex parte.
2. The point of consideration:-
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
b) If so, reliefs and costs?
3. The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of oral evidence. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of cash memo. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party on 17.10.2010. According to the complainant, he has purchased the TV set from the 2nd opposite party on 23.01.2013 and became defective on 28.01.2013. Even though it was repaired by the 2nd opposite party, it again became defective on 05.03.2013. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party assured that if the same has been again occurred he will definitely take steps to replace the product the complaint was registered by the 2nd opposite party as RNA 130128067722 and RNA 131018057116. The product warranty card, etc. were served to the 2nd opposite party and a receipt is issued by him to that effect. Ext.A2 evidenced the same.
4. According to the complainant, the opposite party failed to keep the promise of replacement. The complaint occurred due to the manufacturing defect. Even after two earlier services, the problem could not be cured. As per Ext.A1, the product has warranty for 2 years. The failure on the part of the opposite party to cure the defects during the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service. The allegation of the complainant has not been challenged by the opposite party.
5. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The opposite party had sufficient time to contest the case. Bu they did not turn up. Hence from the evidence adduced by the complainant, we are allowing the complaint.
In the result, complaint is allowed by granting the following reliefs:-
- The opposite party is directed to replace the defective TV set with a new one.
- Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29nd day of March, 2014.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the Complainant:
Ext.A1 is the photocopy of cash memo.
Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party on 17.10.2010.
Evidence of the opposite parties: Nil.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: - Pg/-
Comprd by :-
