BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 24th March 2017
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.163/2013
(Admitted on 15.6.2013)
K.P Umesh Rao,
Aged 43 years,
S/o K.P. Venkatesh Rao,
Market road, Karkala 574104.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri MPK)
VERSUS
- M/s Pioneer Electronics,
A unit of Nayaks Business Associates,
Shamoon Chambers,
Car Street, Mangalore,
Rep. by its authorized signatory.
- L.G. Service center,
Innovative Access,
Opposite Aruna Nursery,
Balmatta New Road, Mangalore.
- Shivam Electronics and communications,
Sales and service Electronic items,
Mahalaxmi Prabha Complex,
Market Road, Karkala 574104.
- LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd,
Having its corporate address at Plot No.51,
Udyog Vihar, Surajpur Kasna Road,
Surajpur, greater Noida 201306,
Rep. by its authorized signatory/M.D.
….OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and 4: Sri MVP)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri. SFS)
(Opposite Party No.3: Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming, to replace the defective L.G. TV Set 42 referred in the complaint or in the alternative to refund a sum of Rs.41,990/ with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase till recovery, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/ to the complainant towards mental agony, hardship and loss suffered by the complainant on account of faulty TV set from the Opposite Parties.
2. In support of the above complaint Sri K.P. Umesh Rao, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him by the opposite party no 1,2,&4, and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C14 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Sri Jagadish, (RW1) Manager, L.G. Electronics, also filed affidavit evidence and Mr Sai Lokanath answered the interrogatories served on him and Mr. Sebastain Fernandes, (RW2), also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R6 as detailed in the annexure here below. Opposite party no 4. Notes of arguments filed by the parties.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
We perused the complaint and the version averments of the parties. This dispute is with regard to the defect in the LG plasma TV set purchased by the complainant which is not cured by the Opposite parties. The complainant alleges that on 27.12.2010 he has purchase the said television LG PLASMA TV 42 and soon after the purchase repeated functional defects found and suffered loss and embarrassments. Within 6 months of purchase it was not functioning properly and used to switch off within half an hour after switched on and the same has been informed to opposite party no 1 on several occasions but not responded and not repaired the TV set and hence alleges deficiency in service. The opposite party contended that the complainant’s TV set become defective after the warranty period of one year and the Opposite parties are ready to repair it on the cost of the complainant and the estimate of the repair is informed over phone to the complainant but the complainant has not given consent to repair it, the Opposite parties are still ready to repair it on the cost of the complainant even now. Hence denies deficiency in service on their part. These are being the facts of dispute in resolving it we consider the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
We have keenly observed the documents produced and the evidence led by the parties. The admissions and the denials emanated are, it is admitted that the L.G. TV Set 42 is purchased by the complainant on 27.12.2010 with a warranty and is now defective and is with the opposite party no 2 the LG service center. It is denied that the L.G. TV Set 42 had become defective within the warranty period and the opposite party has to serve with free of cost. It is denied that the complainant has informed about the defect in the TV set soon after purchase or within six months it was not functioning properly. The opposite party also denied the opposite party no 2 service people visited the complainant house for repair and could not able to find/diagnose the problem, and the visit of the complainant to their show room many number to times with the complaint of the TV set and also the complainant’s information over phone about the defect in the L.G. TV Set 42. The opposite party alleged the limitation issue and objected for the application filed by the complainant for condonation of delay. Admissions and the denials reconciled and considered the following points for adjudication.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the consumer protection Act 1986?
- Whether deficiency in service proved against the Opposite parties by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
We have critically examined the evidence and meticulously marked the contents of the interrogatories. The documents on files traversed carefully. After noting the notes of arguments heard the rival counsels submissions and answered the points as below.
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO.1: The complainant had produced the EX C 1 which established the purchase of the L.G. TV Set 42 from the opposite party no 1 manufactured by the opposite party no 4. The opposite party no 2 is the service center of the opposite party no 4 where the complainant had given the TV set for availing repair service. The opposite party no 3 is the formal party where he collected the TV set on behalf of the opposite party no 2 and handed over to opposite party no 2. The opposite party not disputed the complainant as consumer and hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative. The complainant filed an application u/s 24 A while filing complaint to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint and the application is objected by the Opposite parties. We have checked through the facts and dates admitted. The TV set purchased on 27.12.2010 and the TV set handed over to the opposite party no 3 on 10.10.2012 and received by the opposite party no 2 on 10.11.2012 all these are within the two years of the purchase itself bereft of the date of defect found.
POINT NO.2 & 3: As per complaint allegation, the complainant had purchased the L.G. TV Set 42 on 27.12.2010, soon after the purchase he found functional defects, within 6 months it was not functioning properly which automatically going switch off within half an hour and the same has been informed to Opposite party no1 on several occasions. The complainant submits that the Technicians from the LG service center visited more than three occasions within a span of 3 months and was not able to trace the fault and find solutions to the said recurring problem. The complainant had visited the opposite party no 1 shop on 10.10.2012 and on their direction the TV set handed over to opposite party no 3 and got information from opposite party no 1 that the TV set is laying in the opposite party no 2 the LG service center.
2. It is admitted by the complainant in his answer to interrogatories served by the opposite party no 2 in Q no 5 admitted that he has been given a warranty card along with the product. The complainant has not produce any documents either cogent or circumstantial to establish the TV set become defective with in the warranty period. The available evidence of information given to the Opposite parties is on 10.10.2012 and the complainant not produced the warranty card in spite of it being issued to the complainant to establish the TV set had the warranty at the time it has become defective. The only contention raise by the opposite party is the TV set has not become defective within warranty period and the Opposite parties are not liable to give service free of cost.
The defense lend by the complainant is in his answered to interrogatories Q no 18 and 19 for a suggestion asking for the documents for defect noticed and informed to opposite party immediately or within six months and the opposite party no 2 technicians visit to the complainant place, the complainant said “Both opposite party 1 and opposite party no 2 have records and in the ordinary circumstance no person will keep records towards visit paid by the guests.
We also focused on the interrogatories served by the opposite party no 1 and answer given by the complainant.
Q no 4: you have taking the said TV set from place to place every now and then?
Ans: In this case I have used the subject TV occasionally on account of manufacturing defect.
Q no 5: Have you got any documents to show that the TV set was not functioning properly within 6 months of its purchase......and informed the opposite party no 1 and 4 during this period.
Ans: Your office and LG service center have records for having recorded complaints in the electronically maintained complaint receiving system (the complaints are lodged over mobile phone and received by electronically maintained complaint receiving systems). I have no separate documents....
Q No 14: Can you state the reason for not delivering the said TV set at the time of its non-performance as alleged by you in your affidavit?
Ans: During Dec 2011 I have personally taken the TV set to LG center (opposite party No 2). Opposite party No 2 Had issued a delivery note towards taking the delivery of the TV set. However the said delivery note has to be returned while redelivery to suit its convenience.
3. From the above facts we observed that the complainant was knowing that the TV set is governed by the warranty terms conditions and in spite, not informed in writing about the defect within warranty period, even though he claims having informed over phone to the Opposite parties complaint recording system through mobile recording as soon as defect found but not given any docket number which will be given as per practice prevailed when a complaint lodged through the electronic system. The complainant claims the opposite parties have record of complaint made but not tried to get the documents as provision under discovery of documents or in the interrogatories any suggestion in this regard.
4. We also observed while answering the interrogatories To Q no 14 as above stated the complainant claims that he has once in Dec 2011 taken the TV set to the opposite party no 2 with a complainant and the opposite party has issued a delivery note and the same has been returned to the opposite party while taking delivery of the TV set. This fact is something new which is not pleaded in the complainant. If it is true the complainant might have asked the opposite party to produce the delivery note issued to him. It is difficult to buy contention of the complainant. All the above facts prove beyond doubt that either TV set has not become defective within warranty period or the complainant not informed within warranty period. If information of defect is not made within warranty period we are constrained to hold the opposite party liable for deficiency in service. The Opposite parties produced a citation of the state consumer commission of west Bengal RAJIB MOHAN CHATTARJEE V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., in which it is held that, the opposite party is not liable for extending free of cost repair after the warranty period. In our opinion in both the above cases the complainant has not proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence the answer to the point no 2 in the negative and as such the point no 3 also in the negative.
POINT NO. 4: In the light of above discussion and adjudication of the above points we deliver the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 10 directly typed by Member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24th March 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Sri K.P. Umesh Rao,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 27.12.2010: original tax invoice/ bill of sale issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C2: 10.10.2012: Carbon copy of advice invoice issued by Opposite Party No.3.
Ex C3: Office copy of notice issued by complainant to Opposite Party No.1 and copy of same to Opposite Party No.2 and 3.
Ex.C4 to 6: Postal receipts.
Ex.C7: 29.1.2013: Office copy of legal notice issued on behalf of complainant to Opposite Party No.1 and copy of the same to Opposite Party No.2 and 3.
Ex.C8 to 10: Original postal receipts.
Ex.C11 to 13: Postal Acknowledgements.
Ex.C14: Reply issued by Opposite Party 1.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Sri Jagadish, (RW1) Manager, L.G. Electronics,
RW2: Mr. Sebastain Fernandes,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Self attested copy of the trade license of Opposite Party No.2.
Ex.R2: Self attested copy of VAT Registration certificate o Opposite Party No.2.
Ex.R3: 23.2.2008: Copy of Agreement for authorized service centre between Opposite Party no.2 and LG Electronics India pvt. Ltd.
Ex.R4: 11.10.2012: Self attested copy of Job sheet.
Ex.R5: Self attested copy of customer info.
Ex.R6: 26.10.2012: Self attested copy of Repair History.
Dated: 24.03.2017 MEMBER
