This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 21-12-11 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for the complainant and of Sri M. Sravan Kumar, advocate for opposite party No.1, 2nd opposite party representing inperson, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of CPA seeking replacement of TV or value of TV with interest @24% p.a., from the date of purchase Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:
The 1st opposite party is the authorised dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant on 08-10-10 purchased LCD TV (TH-L32C22DVIERA). The 1st opposite party issued three years warranty against manufacturing defects of the said TV. The complainant installed the said TV with the help of the 1st opposite party. Since the date of installation the said TV gave trouble within a month i.e., loss of memory. The 1st opposite party rectified the same when brought to his notice. Subsequently the said TV again encountered problems i.e., no video display on the screen though audio is working. The 1st opposite party sent technician who took photographs of the said TV. The technician found extensive damage inside the said TV. The said technician also informed that any impact on the surface or hard impression would damage display. No such hard impressions or use of external force was visible on the face of the TV. Due to that the technician came to a conclusion that the said TV suffered from manufacturing defect and it cannot be rectified. The complainant is a highly qualified engineer. The complainant did not shift his house from the date of purchase. The 1st opposite party and technician advised the complainant to change the internal part worth of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant protested the same and made negotiations with the opposite parties personally and through online. There was no positive response from the opposite parties. The said TV suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant purchased another TV for his family as it became essential now a days. The opposite parties failed to give reply though received notice. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. The contention of the 2nd opposite party in brief is thus:
The complaint is misconceived, vexatious and untenable. The 2nd opposite party received a complaint from the complainant for the 1st time on 22-03-11 and it was attended thereto. The 2nd opposite party on inspection found visible thin cracks on the panel of the said television and had shown them to the complainant and took photographs in his presence. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that panel of the said television was damaged due to some external force applied on the said panel. The said television did not suffer from manufacturing defect and as such did not come under the purview of warranty. The 2nd opposite party offered to replace the panel on the complainant paying Rs.15,000/-. The complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands. The complainant did not suffer any mental, physical or financial loss due to any act or omission of the answering the opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the matter in question. Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented by the complainant to suit his claim. The complaint therefore be dismissed.
4. The contention of the 1st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:
The 2nd opposite party gave warranty to its products. The 1st opposite party being dealer sells the products of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant never gave any notice to the 1st opposite party. In other aspects the 1st opposite party adopted the version of the 2nd opposite party.
5. Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Exs.B-1 to B-8 (mistakenly written as Exs.B-1 to B-7) were marked on behalf of complainant and 2nd opposite party respectively.
6. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
4. To what relief?
7. Admitted facts in this case are these:
1. The 1st opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party.
2. The 2nd opposite party manufacturer of Panasonic televisions.
3. The complainant purchased Panasonic LCD TV from the 1st opposite party on 08-10-10 (Ex.A-1 and A-2).
4. The said TV has a warranty of three years including the extended warranty (Ex.A-2).
5. The 1st opposite party once attended to the complainant’s problem of not functioning TV and rectified the problem.
6. The complainant made correspondence with customer care of the 2nd opposite party (Ex.A-6).
7. The 2nd opposite party gave a reply that damaged caused to the panel of the said TV of the complainant due to external force or bending TV (part of Ex.A-6).
8. There was exchange of notices between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party (Exs.A-7 and A-10).
8. POINT No.1:- As the complainant purchased Panasonic LCD TV by paying the price to the 1st opposite party at Guntur and he comes under the purview of consumer. Therefore we opine that the complainant is a consumer and this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and answer this point in favour of the complainant.
9. POINT No.2:- The complainant on 22-03-11 informed the Manager, Panasonic service centre, Guntur that no video was appearing on the TV. On 21-12-11 the complainant brought the TV covered by Ex.A-1 before this Forum. On observation this Forum found cracks/breakage of panel of TV as in Ex.B-3. The contention of the complainant is that the TV purchased under Ex.A-1 suffered from manufacturing defect while the contention of the opposite party is that panel of the said TV developed cracks due to application of external force.
10. Now the Forum has to see, whether the cracks appearing on the TV panel covered by Ex.A-1 was due to manufacturing defect or use of external force. The photos marked as Exs.B-1 to B-7 were taken on 26-03-11 as per the memo filed by the complainant and accepted by OP2.
11. Liquid-Crystal Display (LCD) televisions are a type of television which use a single backlight to illuminate a large array of liquid crystals. These liquid crystals actually make up the screen of the television without the use of a glass panel or screen covering it. LCD flat panel monitors have increased in size and availability, but they still remain more fragile than tube monitors. When the user touches the screen, the liquid can be seen moving. If pressed too hard, the monitor can break, and the liquid run out of the screen. In some cases, just single pixels no longer function, so there is a black mark on the user's monitor. LCD flat panel monitors should be stored in a location where the monitor is not hit by heavy objects. Users should also take care not to touch the screen too roughly.
12. The complainant relied on the decisions reported in Blue Chip India vs. Dr. Chandrashekhara Patial (RP.No.2884 of 2006 decided on 13-10-06), HCL Office, Automation Limited vs. Sureman Prasad and others (RP No.731 of 2005 decided on 07-12-06), Krishan Kumar vs. Raheja Automobiles and another (RP No.130 of 2000 dated 21-02-02).
13. In Blue Chip India vs. Dr. Chandrashekhar Patial (RP.No.2884 of 2006 decided on 13-10-06) the question that arose was whether a complaint is maintainable without adding manufacturer as a party and it was answered affirmatively. Therefore the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as manufacturer was also made as a party to the complaint.
14. In Krishan Kumar vs. Raheja Automobiles and another (RP No.130 of 2000 dated 21-02-02) it was held that the dealer as well as manufacturer are jointly and severally liable. Therefore the above decision is applicable if manufacturing defect is proved by the complainant.
15. The decision reported in HCL Office, Automation Limited vs. Sureman Prasad and others (RP No.731 of 2005 decided on 07-12-06) did not deal with the aspect of manufacturing defect and as such the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.
16. In the Manager, MRF Limited vs. K. Sudevan and another 2010 (4) CPR 507 it was held that it was incumbent upon the complainant who alleged manufacturing defect to prove that the crack developed due to manufacturing defect. In the above case the tyres manufactured by M/s MRF Limited were in question.
17. In Suresh Chand Jain vs. Service Engineer and Sales Supervisor, MRF Limited and another 2011 (1) CPR 281 (NC) it was held that onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the tyres was on the petitioner. In the above case also the tyres manufactured by MRF Limited were in question.
18. The contention of the complainant is that no technical person of any company will come to the rescue of the complainant in proving manufacturing defect and sending the TV in question to an expert for proving manufacturing defect is a costly affair. The said contention is having considerable force. Unless manufacturing defect is established by the complainant deficiency of service by the opposite parties cannot be inferred. As manufacturing defect is not established the decision relied on by the complainant reported in Krishan Kumar vs. Raheja Automobiles and another (RP No.130 of 2000 dated 21-02-02) in our considered opinion in no way help the complainant. On earlier occasion prior to 22-03-11 the video was also functioning according to the complainant. The complainant and his family members viewed the subject TV from the date of purchase till 21-03-11. Therefore the contention of the complainant that the subject TV suffered from manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we hold that the complainant miserably failed in establishing that the TV in question suffered from manufacturing defect. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
19. POINT No.3:- In view of findings on point No.2 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
20. POINT NO.4:- In view of findings on points 2 and 3 the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30th day of December, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 08-10-10 | Copy of purchase bill. |
A2 | 08-10-2010 | Copy of Warranty card |
A3 | 08-10-2010 | Instructions Manual. |
A4 | 08-10-2010 | Product Service Guide, |
A5 | 23-03-11 | Copy of Complaint made by the Complainant to O.P. service centre. |
A6 | 15-04-11 | Copy of Complaint made by the complainant to O.P. Service centre |
A7 | 25-04-11 | Office copy of the legal notice. |
A8 | 25-04-11 | Postal Receipts (3) |
A9 | - | Postal Acknowledgements (3) |
A10 | 10-05-11 | Copy of reply legal notice issued by OP2 |
A11 | 13-05-11 | Copy of cash/credit memo issued by next retail shop |
For opposite party:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 | 23-03-11 | Copy of Inspection Job sheet . |
B2 | 23-03-11 | Copy of Complaint made by the Complainant to O.P. Service centre. |
B3 to B7 | - | Photographs |
B8 | - | E-mail report of company technical team comments |
PRESIDENT
