D.O.F:05/07/2019
D.O.O:29/11/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.131/2019
Dated this, the 29th day of November 2019
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Anoop.P
Parayil (House)
Thottamchal, Kanakapally (P.O)
Parappa (Via) kasaragod
And
- National Radio Electronics Kanhangad
NH 66 North Kottachery, Puthiyavalappu,
Kanhangad.
- Philips T.V Company
Chandivali farm road, Andheri East,
Mumbai – 400072, India.
O R D E R
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The facts of the case in brief is as follows:
The complainant purchased Philips LED TV set from the Opposite Party for Rs. 10,000/- on 22-08-2016 and the same was having 3 years warranty. The display of the TV set become defective within the warranty period and the same was reported to the Opposite Party and a technician of the Opposite Party took the TV set to their showroom. Even though the TV set was promised to be returned after repair within 20 days, it was not done. When contacted with the Opposite Party it was told that the Philips Company stopped the production and they will return the amount to the complainant, but it is also not happened. The Opposite Party did not take any steps for that, inspite of several requests. Hence this complaint is filed for the compensation for the mental agony and monitory loss suffered due to the negligence and service deficiency of the Opposite Party.
The notice sent to the Opposite Party was duly served, but they called absent and hence set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext A1 to A5 are marked. Ext A1 is the cash receipt invoice; Ext A2 is the warranty card. The Ext A3 to A5 are CD containing the call register.
In this case the issues raised for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any negligence or service deficiency?
- If so what is the relief and costs?
For convenience both these issues can be considered together. The definite case of the complainant is that his LED TV set become defective during the warranty period and the Opposite Party took the same for repair but not returned inspite of several requests. The complainant was told that as the Philips Company, the manufacturer of the LED TV stopped the production, the spare parts are not available. It was also told that the Philips company would refund the amount of T.V, but it was not happened. The Opposite Party did not take any steps for that. Due to the negligent attitude of the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered mental agony apart from monitory loss.
In the absence of any rebuttal evidence this Forum holds that there is negligence and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Here the dealer only made party. Manufacturer is not a party. As per the information of the complainant the manufacturer stopped the production which resulted in non availability of the spare parts of the TV.
But the Opposite Party dealer cannot go away by washing hands on the ground that the manufacturer has stopped the production and spare parts are not available to repair the TV. They have some responsibility to solve the grievance of a bonafide purchase. Here the Opposite Party didn’t care to do that. Therefore this Forum holds that the Opposite Party is bound to compensate for the loss suffered by the complainant. The TV has been used for nearly 2 years. The warranty offered was for 3 years. In that circumstances, Rs. 7000/- will be a reasonable compensation.
Therefore the complaint is allowed in part, directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 7000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) to the complaint towards compensation along with Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost. Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1. Cash receipt invoice.
A2. Warranty card.
A3 to A5 are CD containing the call register.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
