IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 83/2020 (filed on 01-07-2020)
Petitioner : Mrs. Shylaja K.S.
Chekkathara,
Journalist Gardens,
Kodimatha, Nattakom,
Kottayam South.
(Adv. Francis Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) Bjaj Allianz General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Bajaj Allianz House,
Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune – 411006.
Rep. by its MD & CEO
Kottyam – 686013.
(2) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Bajaj Allianz House,
Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune – 411006.
Rep. by its Head Technical
Under writing extended warranty.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Praveen C.M.)
(3) Bismi Group,
Bismi Head Office,
Level I, Castle Viyani,
Kochi – 683104,
Rep. by its Managing Director.
(4) Bismi Appliances,
Bismi Arcade, Near Mathrubhumi,
Nagampadom, Kottayam – 686006
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
(For Op 3 and 4, Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
- This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
3 The complainant purchased Philips 43PLL4351 model LED TV from the fourth opposite party on 26-1-2017 with the financial assistance of the first opposite party Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. The finance had to be repaid in monthly instalments and he had closed the finance without any default. According to the complainant that the 2nd opposite party had issued an extended warranty policy for a period of two years by remitting additional amount.
4 The T.V. became non-operational from 2-1-20 and the complainant has intimated the same to the authorities of the third and fourth opposite parties and the representatives of the second opposite party on 22-1-20 itself. At that time they informed that they would rectify the defects immediately and registered a claim on 23-1-20 with Reg no. OC 20-1602-661000002661. But one technician visited and examined the TV and opined that LED panel was damaged due to physical damage and it is not covered by extended warranty. Further they told the complainant that as per provisions of the extended policy and extended warranty for a period of two years is only against all manufacturing defects of the TV. According to the complainant the representatives of the second opposite party never intimated or gave any document to show that the extended warranty covers manufacturing defects only. But the opposite parties with a malafide intention deliberately denied the valuable right of the complainant by refusing to act upon the insurance protection availed from the 2nd opposite party. The act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.
5 Upon notice first and second opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version. In spite of receipt of notice the third and fourth opposite party failed to appear before the commission and hence on 25-3-21 this commission declared third and fourth opposite party as ex-party.
6 The first and second opposite parties filed joint version resisting the averments in the complaint contending that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Insurance Company to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. It is further contended that Insurance policy is a contract and both the parties are under obligation to obey /fulfil all the averments and conditions of the same therein. According to the first and second opposite parties the subject matter of this complaint is a damage caused by the mishandling of the LED TV purchased by the complainant. As per the provisions of the policy it gives an extended warranty for a period of two years, only against all manufacturing defects of the TV. As per the policy terms and conditions the physical damage to the insured asset is not covered under the policy coverage and the same has been informed to the complainant.
7. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A5. Reshma A, who is the senior executive legal of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of the first and second opposite parties and marked exhibit B1 and B2 from the side of the first and second opposite parties.
Points for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?
3. Reliefs and costs?
Point No. 1 to 3
8. For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these four points are considered together. The complainant purchased Philips 43PLL4351 model LED TV from the fourth opposite party on 26-1-2017 with the financial assistance of
first opposite party Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Pvt.Ltd. At the time of the purchasing the TV the complainant had obtained extended warranty providing additional charges. Exhibit A1 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.33500/- towards the price of the T.V. It is proved by Exhibit A2 that the complainant had paid Rs.4122/- towards the membership in CPP ASSET Care for 2 year membership. It is further proved by the exhibit A2 that the membership was from 31-1-2017 to 29-1-2019. It is admitted by the first and second opposite parties in exhibit A5 reply letter that CPP who issued the policy to the complainant is a business partner of the second opposite party.
However the T.V. became non operational from 2-1-20. Thereafter the complainant registered a complaint before the second and third opposite parties and informed the same to the fist and second opposite parties where the technician examined and noted the defect the LED panel has broken fully and it has to be replaced on cost. As the complainant demands for the benefit of extended warranty for a period of two years with regard to change of LED panel, 2nd opposite party had told the extended warranty is only for manufacturing defect of the TV. However, the complainant would argue that he had obtained extended warranty to meet any unfortunate situation and circumstances and 2nd opposite party refused the insurance protection.
The complaint was resisted by the first and second opposite party that as per the policy terms and conditions the physical damage to the insured asset is not covered under the policy coverage and the same has been informed to the complainant. The complainant has a case that the representatives of the second opposite party never intimated or gave any document to show that the extended warranty covers manufacturing defects only. On perusal of exhibit B1 which is an engineering report prepared by the Prodjigy we can see that the physical condition of the of the T.V. is as panel broken and it is further stated in Exhibit B1 that at the time of the inspection it is found that T.V.’s display panel is physically damaged. It is pertinent to note that in exhibit A2 it is categorically stated that manufacturer warranty is for a term for 1 year and extended warranty term for 2 years and has not stated anywhere exhibit A2 that the extended warranty limited only for the manufacturing defect and not provided for the physical damage. Moreover it is pertinent to note that the first and second opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence before this commission that they had issued the Exhibit B1 terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant at the time of purchase of the extended warranty. We cannot hold that the complainant is bound to the terms and conditions of the policy which is not provided to him at the time of purchase. We are of the opinion that the a prudent man who is aware about the fact that extended warranty covers only the manufacturing defect would not purchase the said policy by spending a substantial amount for the same. Thus we are of the opinion that the first and second opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant by invoking a condition which is not provided to the complainant at the time purchase of the policy.
The prayer in the complaint to direct the opposite parties either to get the LED TV repaired or to replace a new LED TV. It is clear from the available materials that the complainant has utilised the said LED TV for 3 years. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the LED TV replaced by a new one or get its full invoice price in case the second opposite party failed to make the TV in a working condition. On evaluating the entire materials available on records we come to the conclusion that the complainant’s TV has been damaged and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the LED TV repaired and made in a working condition and also entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings. Points answered accordingly.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
1. The second opposite party is directed to repair the complainant’s LED TV and make it in a working condition.
2. The second opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
3. The 2nd opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover 50% of the value of the LED TV as shown in
Ext.A1 retail invoice compensation and costs along with interest @ 9 % per annum for the entire amount except for costs from the second opposite party and from its assets.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of August, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 - Bill dtd.26-01-17 issued by 4th opposite party
A2 – Copy of membership details issued by Asset Care
A3 – Copy of notice dtd.28-01-2020 issued by Bajaj Allianz
A4 – Copy of reply notice dtd.18-02-2020 issued by complainant to opposite
parties
A5- Copy of notice
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of terms and conditions
B2 – Engineer report Prodigy
By Order
Assistant Registrar
