IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30^th day of March , 2023

                       Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

                                 Smt.Bindhu.R, Member

                                 Sri.K.M. Anto, Member

CC No. 130/2021 (Filed on 30.07.2021)

Complainant                           :         T.C.Vijayachandran,

                                                          Thazhathupurackal House

                                                          Thirunakkara, Kottayam-686001

                                                          Kottayam Village , Kottayam Taluk,                                                                  

                                                          (By Adv.Sreenivas V.Pai)

                                                          Vs

Opposite parties                      : 1.     Bajaj Finance Ltd

                                                          Rept. By its Sales Manager

                                                          Mr.Jomon Joseph, First Floor

                                                          Varathra Pallathu Building

                                                          T.B Road, Opp Kalyan Silks Kottayam

                                                          (By Adv.Jaison Paliyil)

                                                 2.      CPP Asset Care,

                                                          CPP Assistance Services Pvt Ltd

                                                          Ground Floor, Wing- A, Golf View

                                                          Corporate Tower- A

                                                          Golf Course Road, Section 42,

Gurgaon – 122 002, Haryana

(By Adv.Nikhildev & Adv.Sanjeev Nirwani)

                                                 3.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd

                                                          Regd & Head Office,

Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road

Yerawada , Pune-411 006

(By Adv.Lithin Thomas)

                                                  4.     Bismi Appliances

                                                          Ajmal Bismi Arcade, Near Mathrubhumi

                                                          Nagampadam, Kottayam-686 006

                                                          (By Adv.T.J.Lakshmanan)

                                                 5.      Sony India Pvt Ltd

                                                          A-31 Mohan Co-operative Industrial

                                                          Estate, Mathura Road, NewDelhi-110044

                                                          (By Adv.Manu J Varappally)

                                           O R D E R

Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Sony LED 65 x 9300 C/39689 Television which is manufactured by the 5^th opposite party from 4^th opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the 5^th opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 31.08.2017.  The complainant availed financial facility from the 1^st opposite party to purchase the said television.  The 5^th opposite party provided a warranty for the said television for one year from the date of purchase.  At the time of purchasing the television the complainant obtained an extended warranty for 3 years from the 2^nd opposite party by paying an additional amount of Rs.28,886/.  In addition to this it was also informed that the television was insured with the 3^rd opposite party.

Thereafter while using the television it is found that there was a black dot on the screen which increases its size and thereafter the entire display became vague and unable to watch the television. The complainant lodged a complaint on 01.03.2021 and accordingly 5^th opposite party sent as authorized service personnel for inspecting the television.  After the inspection he informed that display panel of the product needs to be replaced.  It is averred in the complaint that the said defect was caused due to manufacturing defect of the product.

According to the complainant the above defect arouse during the extended warranty period and hence the 2^nd opposite party is liable to give the warranty coverage for replacing the display panel or for any other replacement for the proper and satisfactory working of the television.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party did not pay any heed to the demands made by the complainant and replied bogus contentions.  The 5^th opposite party replied to the lawyers notice of the complainant contenting that as the product was not covered under the warranty, the complaint have to pay the replacement cost of Rs.43,995/-.  5^th opposite party also stated that the complainant has taken insurance and extended warranty from the 3^rd opposite party and hence the manufacturer is not liable to replace the display panel at free of cost.     

According to the complainant since the defect is caused during the extended warranty period provided by the 2^nd opposite party, the defects should be cured by the authorized service centre at the expenses of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party replied to the lawyer’s notice admitting the extended warranty but opposed in the claim stating untenable contents.  It is averred in the complaint that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable either to replace the product or to cure the defect of the television.  The non rectifying the defect of the T.V by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practise and opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation for the damage and mental agony caused to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to replace television with a new television or to cure the television set under the extended warranty and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and cost of this litigation.

Upon notice the opposite parties appeared before this Commission and filed separate versions.

The 1^st opposite party filed version contenting as follows:-

The complainant had purchased Sony LED TV from the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties and subsequently availed a loan from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,43,500/- on 28.09.2017 along with an insurance loan towards the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.28,886/- on 28.09.2017.  It is submitted by the 1^st  opposite party that both the loans are closed and Non Objection Certificates have also been sent the 1^st opposite party is only a financer which provided loans to its customers and is not concerned with any defects of the goods.

The 1^st  opposite party is the financing company providing loans to all the needy persons, thus issuance of the insured policy on the acceptance or rejection of the insurance claim solely depends upon the insurance company ie, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.   The 1^st opposite party should not be held accountable for any of the actions taken by the insurance company towards the insurance claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

Version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:-  

The second opposite party is not an insurance company.  Sony LED TV of the complainant was insured with the 3^rd opposite party and the role of the 2^nd opposite party was limited to that of a mere facilitator.  As such, claims if any were to be processed and settled by the 3^rd opposite party.

The complainant had purchased Sony LED TV with financial support from the first opposite party.  The first opposite party made payment to the 2^nd opposite party towards membership charges of the second opposite party and forwarded all details of the complainant.  The insurance coverage to the Sony LED Television was provided by the third opposite party.  The claim of the complainant was rejected on 08.03.2021 by the insurance company as alleged defects were due to improper voltage supply to the television and not due to manufacturing defects or poor workmanship.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practise on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

Crux of the version of the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:-

The complainant availed group asset protection insurance policy of the 3^rd opposite party vide policy no. OG-18-1000-6610-00414134 for a period of 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2021.  The policy was issued subject to terms, conditions and exclusions thereof.  The asset category is Sony LED T.V manufactured by the 5^th opposite party.  According to the policy the 3^rd opposite party would indemnify the insured against the repair or replacement cost if the insured asset caused by a breakdown.  The claim was reported by the complainant on 01.03.2021 and based on the claim intimation.  The representative of the 3^rd opposite party visited the place on 04.03.2021 for inspection of the insured assets.  After due inspection it was found that the asset insured is burnt due to improper supply of voltage which lead to short circuit , consequently burning the asset.  The policy opted by the complainant covers breakdown to insured asset arising out of manufacturing defects.  As per the policy terms and conditions burnt due to improper voltage supply to the insured assets is not covered under the policy coverage and same has been informed to the complainant through the claim repudiation letters. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practise on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.

Case of the 4^th opposite party is as follows:-  

The complainant who himself visited the showroom of the 4^th opposite party and purchased the television according to his own wish after thoroughly inspecting the products.  The 4^th opposite party is only a dealer of the television manufactured by the Sony and if the T.V had any manufacturing defects the 4^th opposite party being the dealer is not liable for any manufacturing defects.  The 4^th opposite party has never assured any warranty or after sales service of the product.  The complaint has availed extended warranty from the 2^nd opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party was not aware about the communication and transaction entered between the complainant and other opposite parties. The 4^th opposite party is not at all liable for the relief sought by the complainant for the benefit as per the extend warranty provided by the 2^nd opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 4^th opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 

The crux of the version of the 5^th opposite party is as follows:-

The 5^th opposite party is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act having registered office at New Delhi.  The 5^th opposite party admitted the purchase of the Sony LED T.V. LED 65 x 9300 C/39689 by the complainant from the 4^th opposite party.  The standard warranty period of the said television provided by the 5^th opposite party was one year from the date of purchase.  The extended warranty and insurance to the television has been provided by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  As a good will gesture the 5^th opposite party offered a replacement of the television set with successor model at discounted price even though such television set was out of standard warranty provided by the 5^th opposite party.  The complainant lodged a complaint for the 1^st time on 01.03.2021 regarding the defect in the television set.  The authorized service person inspected the television set on 05.03.2021 and it was found that the display panel of the television was not functioning properly as per it is specification and same needs to be replaced and the same was duly informed to the complainant.  The estimated cost of the repair was Rs.43,995/-.  The television has no manufacturing defects at all.  The 5^th opposite party was under no obligation to repair or replace the product at free of cost as standard warranty of one year had already expired.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties who offered the extended warranty and insurance coverage was liable to provide coverage for repair of the television.  There is no unfair trade practise on the part of the 5^th opposite party.     

Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibit A1 to A8 from the side of the complainant. 

P.K.Muhammed is a Branch Manager of the fourth opposite party and filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Meena Bose who is a Senior Executive of the 5^th opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and cause for the opposite parties 1 to 3 submitted that they have no oral evidence.  Documents produced by the first opposite party are marked as Exhibit B1 to B8 and the documents produced by the fifth opposite party are marked as B9 to B12. 

On evaluation of compliant, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Points No 1 and 2 together

         There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a Sony LED television which is manufactured by the 5^th opposite party from the 4^th opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the 5^th opposite party.  It is proved by Exhibit A1 tax invoice issued by the 4^th opposite party on 31.08.2017 that the complainant had paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the 4^th opposite party  as consideration for the said T.V.  It is also an undisputed fact that the 5^th opposite party   provided a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the said television.  Exhibit A2 proves that the 2^nd opposite party has provided and extended warranty for 3 year to the said television.   It is further proved by exhibit A2 that the complainant had obtained membership of the 2^nd opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.28,886/- to the 2^nd opposite party  and the period of membership was three years.  The specific case of the complainant is that their appeared a black dot on the screen and which increased in size and thereafter the entire display of the television became vague and unable to watch.  Though the complainant lodged a complaint on 01.03.2021 then 5^th opposite party sent an authorized service person for inspecting the television.  After the inspection of the television the authorised service person informed the complainant that the display panel of the television needs to be replaced for the smooth working of the T.V.   According to the complainant the defect arose during the extended warranty period and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to give the warranty coverage for replacing the display panel. 

         Complaint was resisted by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties on the ground that the television is burnt due to the improper supply of voltage which lead to short circuit. The policy obtained by the complainant covers only breakdown of the product arising out of manufacturing defects only.   In order to prove his case the complainant applied for appointment of an Expert Commissioner to examine the defect of the television.  Accordingly this Commission appointed an Expert Commissioner to examine the subject T.V and ascertain the cause of defect.   Expert Commissioner filed Exhibit C1, report to this Commission stating that there is a large black spot on the left side of the screen which ruins the viewing experience.  He categorically reported that no physical damage was found on the screen and there was no defect in electrical installation or wiring at the site.  It is further reported by the expert commissioner that the most likely cause of the black spot on the television is manufacturing defects.  Though the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties contended that the defect of the television was due to the high voltage and short circuit they did not adduce any evidence to prove their case.  In the absence of the contrary evidence we are of the opinion that the black spot which appeared on the screen of the T.V is due to manufacturing defects.

         As discussed above the 2^nd opposite party provided an extended warranty for 3 years from the date of purchase of the said T.V.   Exhibit B4 is the terms and conditions of the membership and extended warranty provided by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  On going through the Exhibit B4 we can see that the appliance is defined as a new LED T.V purchased by the member of the 2^nd opposite party and financed from BFL that is the 1^st opposite party of value more than Rs.1,50,000/- from this it is evident that the 2^nd opposite party  provided extended warranty and other protection to the product financed by the 1^st opposite party.  On going through the terms and conditions of the membership of the 2^nd opposite party we cannot see any exclusion limiting the liability of the 2^nd opposite party to indemnify the member only in the case of a manufacturing defect or poor workmanship of the product.  The 3^rd  opposite party  contended that their liability to indemnify the complainant against the repair or replacement cost of the insured product by a breakdown arising out of manufacturing defects or due to the poor workmanship of the  service person of the authorised workshop during the policy period.  On going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the breakdown is defined for an electrical and mechanical items the breakdown shall mean the mechanical and electrical failure of a physical object that causes it to not function in its intended manner.  Thus on going through these definitions we are of the opinion that the 3^rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant for the defects caused to this television which was due to manufacturing defect.  It is further stated in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy that the covering period of the policy that shall always be after the expiry of standard manufacturing warranty.  Here in case on hand the defect of the T.V, was reported to the manufacturer on 01.03.2021.  That is after the expiry of the standard warranty provided by the manufacturer.  Admittedly the television was purchased on 21.08.2017 and the standard warranty was expired on 31.08.2018.  The extend warranty and coverage of the policy shall be applicable for 3 years from 31.08.2018.  Thus as per the terms and conditions of the policy the 3^rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the insured that is the complainant here in up to 31.08.2021.   Admittedly the defect of the TV was reported on 01.03.2021 and hence the 3^rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the insured as per the terms and conditions.  

         We already found that the defect of the television is due to manufacturing defect.  On going through the covering letter of the policy condition which is annexure to Exhibit B4 we can see that the extended warranty programme supported by a group asset protection policy is issued by the 3^rd opposite party  and the complainant is a beneficiary under the extended warranty group policy a complimentary benefit of being the ‘CPP Asset Care Member’ of the 2^nd opposite party  and further more it is categorically stated in the covering letter that the complainant is covered under the extended warranty group policy for a some insured upto the purchase invoice value of the insured asset.  On going through Exhibit B4 it is evident that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to indemnify the insured in case of any manufacturing defects of the insured asset.  Here in case on hand there is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a LED T.V for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.  A person who bought a costly television has put to much mental agony and hardship when became to know that he will not be covered by the extended warranty which was purchased by paying him Rs.28,886/-.   The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the act of the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.  On the evaluation of the available evidence on record that the complainant had succeeded to prove this case with cogent evidence and complaint is allowed. 

1. We hereby direct the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to bear the cost for curing the defect of the television under the extended warranty or insurance policy or in alternative to refund Rs.2,50,000/- that is the price of the T.V to the complainant.
2. We hereby direct the second and third opposite parties to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency  in service on the part of the second and  third  opposite parties .
3. We hereby direct the second and third opposite parties to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of this litigation  to the  complainant.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of March, 2023.

Sri.Manulal.V.S, President     sd/-

Smt.Bindhu.R, Member          sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member          sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.

A1-    Original of taxable invoice of Bismi Appliances dated 31.08.2017.

A2-    Copy of the letter from Asset Care, dated 10.10.2017.

A3-    Copy of the letter from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd dated 08.03.2021.

A4-    Copy of the legal notice dated 12.04.2021.

A5, A5 (a), A5 (b), A5(c) & A5 (d) series- Postal receipts.

A6 & A6(a)- Postal acknowledgments cards.

A7-    Legal notice dated 28.04.2021.

A8-    Letter from Sony India Pvt Ltd, dated 05.07.2021.

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties.

B1-    Copy of the power of attorney dated 13.09.2017.

B2-    Copy of the terms and conditions issued from Bajaj Finance Ltd.

B3-    Copy of the sales transaction details of Bismi Appliances, Nagambadom, Kottayam.

B4-    Copy of CPP Asset Care –Membership details cum sales proforma.

B5-    Copy of statement of account issued from Bajaj Finserve.

B6-    Copy of statement of account issued from Bajaj Finserve.

B7-    Certified true copy of group asset protection policy schedule.

B8-    Letter from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, dated 08.03.2021.

B9-    Certified true copy of the resolution adopted by the board of directors of Sony India Pvt Ltd. 

B10-  Copy of photographs depicting black dot on screen of the T.V.

B11-  Estimate dated 05.03.2021.

B12-  Letter from Sony India, dated 05.07.2021.

Expert Commissioner

  C1-  Expert commission report

                                                 By order

                                                                                                                                            sd/-

                                                       Assistant Registrar