BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 27th February 2017
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.118/2013
(Admitted on 27.04.2013)
Lancelot M.D Souza,
Advocate,
Aged about 56 years,
Charisma, Balikashram Road,
Kankanady, Mangalore 2.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. SD)
VERSUS
- Proprietor,
H.V.T. Appliances, S.R.Complex,
Near Dena Bank, Bendoorwell,
Mangalore 2.
- Managing Director,
Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd,
Regd. Office, 6th Floor,
Spic Building, Annexe No.88,
Mount Road, Guindy,
Channai 32.
.........OPPOSITE PARTY
(Opposite Party No.1: Ex parte)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri. GSKG)
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 claiming, the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.24,990/ with 12% interest from 03.07.2010 till payment to the complainant, to pay Rs.20,000/ towards compensation, to pay Rs.10,000/ towards expenses.
2. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr. Lancelot M.D, filed affidavit evidence as (CW1) and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Prasad K.V. (RW1) Branch Service In charge, Mr. Harish (RW2) Serviceman also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 as detailed in the annexure here below.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
On perusal of the complaint and the version averments we conceive the dispute is related to the LCD TV set purchased by the complainant has become defective. As per complaint averment the complainant had purchased the LCD TV set from the opposite party no 1 who is the dealer of the Opposite party no 2 the manufacturer of the LCD TV set. The opposite party no 1 has given 3 years warranty including extended warranty of two years. During the period of warranty the LCD TV set turned defective and the opposite parties not repairing or replacing as per warranty condition and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The Opposite parties contested on ground that the LCD TV set defect is due to breakage in the panel and that there is no warranty at the time of defect, no warranty for the panel and no warranty for the defect arising out of mishandling by the customers. The defect is due to mishandling by the complainant and hence there is no deficiency of service from their part. This being the core of dispute we considered the following points to be adjudicate for resolving this dispute.
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
We have considered the evidence and the documents produced by the parties. The admitted facts are the purchase of the LCD T.V. by the complainant from the opposite party, the breakage of the LCD T.V. it is denied that there was warranty at the time of breakage, also the warranty condition do not apply for the breakage due to mishandling by the complainant. Theas are being the facts of admissions and denials we are of the opinion that the following points may be decided in resolving this complaint.
- Whether under Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the opposite parties prove that there was no warranty for the panel of the LCD TV set at the time of breaking down?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the prayed relief?
- What order?
On considering the rival contentions and the evidence produced we answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the affirmative.
- As per order delivered.
REASON
POINT NO 1: EX C1 is the invoice produced by the complainant and the EX C2 is the extended warranty card both are in the name of the complainant which establishes the purchase of the LCD TV set by the complainant and the relation of consumer and the trader. This is an undisputed fact too. Hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2: The contention of the opposite party is the LCD TV set become defective and stoped working because of panel breakage and the breakage is due to mishandling of the LCD TV set by the complainant and also there is no extended warranty as claimed by the complainant and also there is no warranty coverage for the panel. The opposite party not produced any evidence except the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination to prove their case. In turn the complainant produced the extended warranty document issued by the opposite party no 1 stamped and signed. It is admitted fact that the opposite party no 1 is the selling agent and dealer of the opposite party no1. Even though the opposite party no 2 denied the extended warranty of 1+2 having been issued but the document EX c2 before us disproves the contention as it is issued to the disputed LCD TV set prima facie. The other contention of the opposite party is the LCD TV set got damaged due to manhandling meaning mishandling. The opposite party refers to a documents called customers case history (EX 1)not produced (in page no 2 para 2 third line) and says as per this complaint they have visited the complainant for servicing and noticed the TV panel broken and same was informed to the complainant.
We referred the interrogatories served by the complainant to the RW 2, one Shri Harish who is the service man of opposite parties and who visited the complainant’s house for attending the complaint.
Qn. 7: Do you have any documents to show that you have informed the complainant that the panel of the LCD broken?
An. 7: is yes
Qn. 11: As per your opinion how the panel broke?
An. 11: May be because of falling down while shifting or hitting of hard substance like table chair ladder hard ball bat or any other hard playing article by the children etc.
Qn 13: The front glass of the LCD of the complainant not broken.
An. 13 Yes (in answer to Qn. 12 op says the front glass is unbreakable)
We also keenly observed in interrogatories served by the complainant on opposite party no 2 in
Qn. 17: Do you have any documents to show the reason for switch off?
An. 17: If the LCD TV has been duly verified by the qualified technician, he can tell the reason, because for the damaged materials no documents will be there.
2. In our opinion these above interrogatory evidence from which it is emanated that 1) The opposite parties have sent their service man to inspection and the service man inspected and prepared documents to inform the complaint about the breaking of LCD panel but not produced before us to prove their case. 2) As contended by the opposite party that the panel was broken because of the hard hit or falling while shifting is difficult to believe as there is suggestion that the front glass of the LCD panel not broken and it is admitted as not broken and it is unbreakable. There is no clear explanation how the outer glass will be safe on hard hitting and the panel will break? 3) The opposite party knows it that the reason for the breakage can only be known by the qualified technician but not attempted to know the actual reason for the breakage where he is bound to know before refusing the replacement. It is also case of the opposite party that the panel not covered under the warranty. We have closely scrutinised the warranty document and nowhere the panel is excluded specifically or even any of the condition manifested the exclusion and we decline the contention. Hence we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party not proved that there was no warranty for the panel of the LCD TV set at the time of breaking down, and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. As such we answered the point no 2 in the negative.
POINT NO 3: As per above discussion the opposite party failed in proving the LCD TV set damaged not in warranty period by cogent evidence and the complainant produced warranty documents which said the warranty period is for 1+2 years and the LCD TV set stop functioning during the warranty period we hold the opposite parties are liable for deficiency of service. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of ₹ 24990/ the price paid for the purchase of the LCD TV set together with an interest of 9 % per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Since the opposite parties denied the complainant proper service and replacement in spite of issuing warranty certificate for 1+2 years but negligent in appreciating the document is liable to pay compensation also. In our view the complainant is entitled for an amount of ₹ 10000/ as compensation. We deem fit an amount of ₹ 6000/ towards litigation expenses to be awarded. Hence we answered the point no 3 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 4: In the light of above discussion and adjudication of points we pass the following.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 24,990/ with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment and an amount of Rs. 10,000/ towards compensation and Rs.3,000/ towards litigation expense within 30 days of the copy of this order received.
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 8 directly typed by Member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 27rd February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKR) (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 Mr. Lancelot M.D.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 03.07.2010: Copy of the invoice.
Ex C2: 03.07.2010: Copy of the Warranty Card.
Ex C3: 20.12.2012: O/c of the regd lawyer s notice.
Ex.C4: 21.12.2012: Postal acknowledgement of Opposite Party 1.
Ex.C5: 26.12.2012: Postal acknowledgement of Opposite Party 2.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Mr. Prasad K.V.
RW2: Mr. Harish.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
Dated: 27.02.2017 MEMBER
