BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No.76/2019     Filed on 26.03.2019

ORDER DATED: 15.10.2019

Complainant:

(by Adv. Nijumudeen M.)

Opposite party:

This C.C having been heard on 30.08.2019, the Forum on 15.10.2019 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.,  MEMBER:

The complainant has presented this complaint before this forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging that he had purchased a Videocon TV from the opposite party having a warranty of 3 years.  The TV became non-functioning.  The complainant gave the TV for service to the service centre and they intimated the complainant that the spare parts were not available and so they cannot repair the TV.  The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  The complainant further prays that the opposite party may be directed to return the cost of the TV that he purchased or replace the TV with a new one, for that effect he had filed this complaint before this Forum.

Eventhough the opposite party received notice, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and opposite party was set exparte.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) and (ii)

The complainant had filed chief affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 2 documents which is marked as Ext. P1 and P2.  Complainant alleges that due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party, his TV was not serviced free of cost eventhough there is warranty.  The opposite party did not turn up.  Hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant.  Ext. P1 is the invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 11.09.2016, which shows the purchase of the TV from the opposite party.  As per Ext. P2 it can be seen that the complainant had taken extended warranty.  The opposite party cannot evade from repairing the TV which the opposite party had sold to the party.  The opposite party is bound to repair the TV free of cost, as there is warranty and if the spare parts are not available to repair the TV, the opposite party is bound to return the cost of the TV that he purchased or replace the non-working TV with a new one.  From the documents produced by the complainant, we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to repair the TV free of cost, as there is warranty and if the spare parts are not available to repair the TV the opposite party is bound to return the cost of the TV to the complainant or replace the non-working TV with a new one and pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realisation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of October, 2019.

SL

C.C.No.76/2019

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

5. COURT EXHIBITS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-            

PRESIDENT