IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2013
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 68/2013 (Filed on 03.06.2013)
Between:
George Kurian,
Idavamvelil,
Eraviperoor.P.O. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Attinkara Electronics Division,
Cross Junction,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
TMC 12/22, T.K. Road,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
3. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
Vasudeva Buildings,
T.D.Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin – 682 011. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: On 06.08.2011 complainant purchased an LCD TV from the 3rd opposite party, which was manufactured by the L.G. Company and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are their customer service centres. According to the complainant within warranty period T.V became faulty and the matter was informed to the service centre and after two weeks they have repaired the T.V. Thereafter again the T.V became faulty and on intimation they have replaced the damaged part and collected Rs.2,282/- from the complainant. After some days the replaced part become faulty and they have repaired the same. After few days the T.V became faulty again and the matter was duly informed to the opposite parties. But there is no response from the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting a new T.V, or getting the price of the T.V along with cost and compensation of Rs. 12,000/- under various heads.
3. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: 1st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a T.V set from their shop and their contention is that when the complainant informed about the complaint, they have repaired the same. Other complaint booking is made by the complainant himself with the service centre. So they are not responsible for the acts of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. 1st opposite party is only a dealer of L.G products and they have no way to cure the defects occurred to L.G products. Hence 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
4. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties not appeared and they were declared as exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that he had purchased an LCD TV of L.G Company from the 1st opposite party and within the warranty period more than three times it become faulty. Opposite parties repaired it 3 time. But the fault of the product is still continuing. Matter was informed to the opposite parties. But they have not turned up. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the allegation of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 2 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 06.08.2011 from Attinkara Electronics issued to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the retail invoice dated 19.10.2012 for the repairs of the T.V from the 2nd opposite party issued to the complainant.
9. 1st opposite party’s contention is that they are only retailers and repairs has to be done by other opposite parties and 1st opposite party had properly intimated the complainant’s complaint to others and hence they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of 1st opposite party. But they have cross-examined PW1.
10. On the basis of the complaint, oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and as per Ext.A1 it is seen that complainant had purchased an LCD TV set from the 1st opposite party by paying Rs. 22,500/-. As per Ext.A2, it is seen that the repairs done on 19.10.2012 is on payment which means that there is no warranty on that day. Otherwise the repairs would have been done free of cost. However it is the duty of the service centers to repair the complaints of their products, in spite there is warranty or not. The allegation of the complainant is that the authorized service centre has not responded to the complainant in spite of his intimation regarding the complaints of his T.V to 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party. Further 1st opposite party submitted before this Forum that they also intimated the complainant’s grievances to 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party. So it is clear that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties ignored the grievances of the complainant which is a clear deficiency in service from the part of 2nd and 3rd opposite party and hence they are liable to the complainant. But since the complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence to show that the complaints of the T.V occurred during the warranty period, this complaint cannot be allowed as prayed for by the complainant. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed with modifications:
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed as modified thereby 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the complainant’s T.V under usual terms without collecting labour/service charge within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the T.V along with cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of August, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : George Kurian
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the retail invoice dated 06.08.2011 for
Rs. 22,500 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant.
A2 : Photocopy of the retail invoice dated 19.10.2012 for
Rs. 2,282/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) George Kurian, Idavamvelil, Eraviperoor.P.O. (2) Attinkara Electronics Division, Cross Junction,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
(3) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., TMC 12/22, T.K. Road,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
(4) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Vasudeva Buildings,
T.D.Road, Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 011.
(5) The Stock File.
