BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COM.MISSION : HYDERABAD

FA NO.255 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.318 OF 2012

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

Between:

A.S.Raj Kumar, R/o 505/1,

Rifle Range, Railway Colony,

Opp: Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

…Appellant/Complainant

And

1)       Videocon Industries Ltd.,

          Rep. by Chairman & M.D.,

          Head Office at 14 KM Stone, Aurangabad,

          Paithan Road, Chitegaon Tq.,

          Paithan, Aurangabad – 431 105.

2)       Sri Khater Home Appliances Pvt., Ltd.,

          Rep. by Sri Khater, Proprietor,

          # 7-2-652, Khater House,

          Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

3)       Sri Nahusha Electronics,

          Represented by Sri M.Prasad, M.D.,

          and Ramakanth, Office at 1-1-150,

          Alexander Road, Opp: Line to YMCA,

          S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

…Respondents/Opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant           :         M/s B.Simhachalam & K.Chakravarthy

Counsel for the Respondents     :         M/s V.Gouri Sankara Rao-for R1

                                                          R2 and R3 – served with notice.

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla   …      President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao       …      Member

Thursday, the Seventeenth day of November

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful Complainant aggrieved by the orders dated 28.03.2014 of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.318 of 2012 in dismissing the complaint. 

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that OP No.1 is manufacturer, OP No.2 is authorized wholesale dealer and OP No.3 is authorized service centre of Videocon televisions.  On 14.01.2008 Complainant came across an offer introduced by the OP No.1 and 2 under “MANO YA NA MANO OFFER 2007” wherein on purchase of one flat CTV 34” television, offered with 5 years warranty and guarantee for the picture tube apart from free service and further offered another plasma 32 (81 cm) CTV after 2 years and 11 months of its purchase.  Complainant stated to have purchased Jumbo 34” flat CTV, model 8600 QS, sl.no.300502 with head phone from OP No.1 under the said scheme vide invoice No.1239, dated 14.01.2008 for a consideration of Rs.12,990/- with TIN No.28570195016.

4)       The OP No.1 through its local office Himayathnagar, Hyderabad issued an application No.128397, dated 14.01.2008 congratulating the complainant and OP No.2 assured guarantee of free service upto 5 years including the picture tube.  They also offered extended warranty upto 5 years from date of purchase during which period, no service charges will be levied.  Believing their version, complainant purchased the colour television set and installed at his home.  In September 2011, the Complainant experienced problem with the picture tube and informed the same to the Ops 1 and 2 who in turn advised to approach OP No.3.  On approaching OP No.3, they asked to bring the television and assured to reimburse the transport charges but failed to provide, who in turn, after inspection informed that the picture tube has to be replaced.  

5)       The OP No.3 acknowledged the receipt of television vide Job No.13521, dated 29.09.2011 and informed that after receipt of new picture tube from OP No.1, they will attend the defect, however, the same is not attended so far and the set is lying in the custody of the OP No.3.  Though much considerable time had elapsed, there is no response.  Instead, OP No.3 demanded to pay Rs.3,000/- for replacement of kit 34”, to which, the complainant acceded to.   Though OP No.3 promised to replace the picture tube within 10 days, surprisingly no receipt was passed.  And in March, 2012 OP No.3 informed that the Complainant to take back the television as the same is replaced with new picture tube.  But upon installation, the picture quality was worst than earlier and complainant suspected it to be the old picture tube. 

6)       From day one of its purchase, the television was not upto the mark and there is no picture at all on the screen.  On complaint, Ops assured to replace the same with new picture tube or else the television itself or the cost thereof but they failed.  Neither they replaced the old defective picture tube nor replaced the television set and prolonged the same on one or other pretext, which caused loss to the Complainant.  As a result of which, there was no entertainment for his family members and they underwent mental agony, which amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite parties.  Hence the complaint praying to direct the Ops to replace the picture tube of the subject television with a new one; to reimburse the amount of Rs.3,000/- incurred towards spares; to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-; award Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges along with costs of the complaint.

7)       Opposite parties resisted the claim by way of written version contending that the complaint is filed with a dishonest intention to gain wrongfully and cause wrongful loss to them.  Videocon is a reputed company and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  They admitted to have offered the scheme “Maano Ya Na Maano-07” as per which, they provided extended service warranty upto 5 years during which period, no service charges will be levied and the cost of the spare is to be borne by the customers.  No warranty was provided for the picture tube.  On receipt of complaint, their technicians attended the call and informed that the picture tube requires to be replaced.  At the instruction of Complainant, OP No.3 replaced the picture tube and no charges were collected for the services rendered.

8)       In fact, Complainant had used the television set for more than 3 years 8 months and there was no complaint of any nature.  The present complaint is filed with false allegations and there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant got filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A7.  In spite of long rope, the Opposite parties could not file their evidence affidavit and hence their right to file the evidence affidavit was forfeited.

10)     The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint observing no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.     

11)     Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to consider (a) the fact that the extended warranty was for 5 years from the date of purchase and is extended to colour picture tube also and it also failed to consider Ex.A2 which is of vital importance.  The forum below further failed to consider the fact that the Respondents collected money for replacement of picture tube though the same arose within the period of warranty.  Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order and consequently to allow the complaint.

12)     The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

13)     It is not in dispute that on the offer made by the Respondent No.1 Company, the Appellant purchased the subject colour television set from the Respondent No.2 and complained the defect in the television set after due course of its usage, within the period of warranty by taking it to the service centre of Respondent No.3.  The only dispute is that the picture tube is not covered by the extended period of warranty and that no service charges would be levied. 

14)     The moot question involved in this case is whether the extended warranty of five years is extended on the picture tube or not.  A perusal of Ex.A1 would go to show that the warranty is extended on the product for a period of 5 years under “MAANO YA NA MAANO OFFER-07” and this warranty is extended on colour picture tube also.  It is specifically mentioned on Ex.A1 as “….5 year warranty is extended on colour picture tube only which please note” which mean and include the picture tube in question.  Ex.A3 goes to show that the Appellant purchased the Videocon colour television bearing Model No.8600QS bearing serial number 300502 on 14.01.2008 for a consideration of Rs.12,990/-.  Ex.A2 is the extended warranty of the Ex.A1 product.  Ex.A3 is the Certificate issued by the OP No.1 company under the above offer. 

15)     It is not in dispute that the Appellant had complained defect in the television set to the Respondent No.2, which in turn instructed to take the same to the Respondent No.3.  It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.3 informed the Appellant that there is PT problem in the subject television set, as is evident from Ex.A4.  Ex.A5 and A6 cash memos evidence that the Respondent No.3 collected Rs.3,000/- under two memos for the new kit from the Appellant.  It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.3 replaced the old kit with new one. 

16)     It is the specific case of the Appellant that the problem in the picture tube arose within the period of extended warranty and instead of repairing the picture tube at free of cost, the Respondent No.3 charged Rs.3,000/-.  Though the Respondents denied the claim of the Appellant, no reasons are assigned as to the disentitlement of the Appellant for replacement of the picture tube with new one at free of cost in view of the extended warranty of 5 years.  Admittedly, the subject television set was purchased on 14.01.2008 and the extended warranty of five years would come to an end on 13.01.2013.  The Appellant complained the problem in the picture tube on 29.09.2011 and the same appears to have been rectified in the month of December 2011 but to the dissastisfaction of the Appellant. 

17)     When the Respondent No.1 itself extended the warranty of 5 years on colour picture tube, there is no justification on the part of the Respondent No.3 in collecting the amount for the new kit.  It is also not the case of the Respondent No.3 that the problem is otherwise.  In tune with Appellant, the Respondents admitted the problem to be with the picture tube, in which circumstance, they ought not to have collected any monies for the same, compelling the Appellant to knock the doors of the forum below.  From the documents brought on record, it is clinchingly established by the Appellant that the problem in the picture tube arose within the period of extended warranty of five years and the same is covered under warranty.  Instead of repairing the television set at free of cost, the Respondent No.3 collected the amount of Rs.3,000/- from the Appellant which is not in denial.

18)     On account of laches on the part of the Respondents, the Appellant initiated the complaint which is under scrutiny in this appeal.  The Respondents failed to render proper and effective service in consonance with the terms and conditions of Ex.A1, as such, the Respondent No.1 is liable to refund the same to the Appellant together with interest.  

19)     In the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the forum below and the point framed for consideration in paragraph No.12, supra, is answered accordingly.

20)     In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad dated 28.03.2014 in C.C.No.318/2012 and direct the Respondent No.1/Opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the Appellant together with interest @ 9% p.a. and to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with the costs of this appeal computed at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges.  The appeal against the Respondents No.2 and 3 is dismissed with no costs.  Time for compliance : four weeks.

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER

Dated 17.11.2016

​