Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/28
1. Shiva Kumar
R/at Doddagollarahatti, Opp. Airtel Tower, Magadi Main Road, Viswanidam Post, Bangalore-560 091.
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
PRESENT:
Sri. T. Rajashekhariah B.A. LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT
Shiva Kumar,
R/at Doddagollarahatti,
Opp.Airtel Tower,
Magadi Main Road, Viswanidam Post, Bangalore-560 091.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1
Home Solutions Retail (India) Limited.,
E-Zone, Bangalore, Rajajinagar,
Tejas Arcade, No.9/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
2
Home Solutions Retail (India) Limited.,
Regd.Office, Knowledge House,
Sham Nagar, Office Jogeshwari,
Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari East,
Mumbai-400 060. India.
ORDER
1. This Complaint was filed on 04.01.2011 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.17,560/- and a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and to award such other reliefs.
2. According to the Complainant, he purchased a TCL Company LCD TV of the description 600320078 L32M61A3 for Rs.17,560/- from the Opposite Parties as per Tax Invoice No.138401550 dt.25.1.2010. The said TV set was used for six months. Thereafter, it went out of order. No power was passing through the TV set and no figures were appearing. The Complainant intimated the problem to the Opposite Parties over phone on 6.7.2010. The staff of the Opposite Parties who visited the Complainant’s house verified the TV set and told that there was a problem in motherboard and stated that they would exchange the TV set. Thereafter, none of the Opposite Parties’ persons turned up. The Complainant again contacted the Opposite Parties on 4.10.2010 lodged Complaint as per No.10J04C096. Though the TV set in question is under warranty, except giving promises, none of the Opposite Party persons have attended the Complaint. Under these circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has approached this Forum with the above relief.
3. The matter came to be admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties. Inspite of service of notice, neither the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum, nor made available its version. Hence, the Opposite Parties were placed exparte. The Complainant has led his evidence by way of affidavit. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the Complainant has established deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?
5. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Affirmative
ii) As per the final order.
R E A S O N S
6. POINT NO.1: From a perusal of the material on record coupled with the statement of the Complainant on oath, it is clear that the Complainant has purchased the TV set in question from the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.17,560/- as per Tax Invoice dt.25.1.2010 issued by the Opposite Party. The warranty card produced along with the Complaint shows that the TV set in question is covered under warranty for a period of 12 months i.e. upto 25.1.2011. According to the Complainant after six months, the TV set went out of order and the power was not passing. No figures were appearing. When he complained to the Opposite Parties, the staff of the Opposite Parties visited the Complainant’s house, inspected the TV set and told that there was motherboard problem. Though the staff of the Opposite Parties assured exchange of the TV set, the same was not complied with. Again when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party on 4.10.2010 and lodged the Complaint as per No.10J04C096, except promise from the Opposite Parties, there was no compliance. Hence, the Opposite Parties are deficient in its service. Though the Opposite Parties were afforded with ample opportunity, neither the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum, nor made available their version. In the circumstances, the statement of the Complainant remained unchallenged. When the TV set in question went out of order within a short span of period and well within the period of warranty, the Opposite Parties were expected to attend to the Complaint and remove the defect in the set. Even though, according to the Complainant, the staff of the Opposite Parties assured exchange of motherboard initially, when intimated on 6.7.2010, they did not comply their assurance. When a Complaint was lodged again on 4.10.2010, there was no response from the Opposite Parties. Under these circumstances, the act of omission on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounts to deficiency in service. Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
7. POINT NO.2: The Complainant has prayed for a direction to refund Rs.17,560/- and to award compensation of Rs.75,000/- for having caused mental agony and sufferance. When the TV set in question went out of order completely after six months from the date of purchase within the warranty period, the Complainant is justified in demanding refund of the amount of Rs.17,560/- and accordingly, he is entitled for refund of Rs.17,560/- from the Opposite Parties by returning the T.V. Set. Since on account of acts of omission on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has been put to inconvenience and deprivation of proper use of the TV set, he is entitled for reasonable compensation of Rs.3,000/- including costs of this proceedings. Point No.2 is accordingly answered in favour of the Complainant. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
This Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund to the Complainant Rs.17,560/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred and sixty) by taking back the T.V. Set and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation including costs of this proceedings. The Opposite Parties are granted 30 days time from today to comply this Order. If not complied by then, the said sum of Rs.17,560/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default, till actual payment.
This Order is pronounced on this the 29th day of March 2011.
H.M. SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member