O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The facts of the case leading to this complaint are as follows:
On 13-09-2009 the complainant purchased a Sony LCD television set from the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 24,900/- which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party provided one year warranty for the same. The technician of the opposite parties installed the TV set in the complainant’s residence. While so on 26-05-2010 the vision of the TV was seen obstructed at the right bottom. At the instance of the complainant on 29-05-2010 the technician of the 1st opposite party examined the T.V. and took photographs. Again on 05-06-2010 another technician came and took photographs. They opined that the fault is with the LCD screen. The defect of the T.V. is due to its inherent manufacturing defect. Since there was no response on the part of the opposite parties the complainant caused a notice to the opposite parties either to replace the T.V. or to refund its price. The 2nd opposite party send a reply raising untenable contentions. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the set with a new one or to refund its price together with compensation and costs.
2. Version of the 2nd opposite party.
The authorized personnel of the 2nd opposite party installed the T.V. set at the residence of the complainant. There is no expert evidence to prove that the machine suffers from manufacturing defect. As per clause 8 of the warranty conditions the 2nd opposite party is not liable to provide warranty in cases of mishandling of the
LCD and defects and physical damage caused due to negligence of the consumer. The photographs taken by the service engineer go to show that the LCD of the complainant is physically damaged. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 1st opposite party did not respond for reasons of their own. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. The witness for the 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the 2nd opposite party.
4. During the proceedings in this Forum on 26-02-2011 the complainant produced the gadget under dispute, it was physically verified by the Forum to a certain whether there was any external damage. And it was found that there is merit in the allegation of the complainant to the extend that no visible damage could be traced. Again on 31-03-2011 the complainant produced the gadget in question in the Forum. Technician of the 2nd opposite party explained that the glass appears to have been fixed externally is not real glass known in common parlance. It is made of twin film transistor. And also he said that the light contained in the particular device is being spread in the film due to an external impact. On the other hand the complainant is of the view that had there been an external force applied that would have been definitely visible in the form of at least a scratch on the outside part of the film
5. The points that enunciated for consideration are.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled either to get replacement of the T.V. set or refund of its price. ?
ii. Compensation and costs if any?
6. Point No. i. It is not in dispute that on 13-09-2009 the complainant purchased a Sony LCD 26T 400 A T.V. set from the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 24,900/- evidenced by Ext. A1 retail invoice. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the TV and they have provided one year warranty for the product evidenced from Ext. A2 service warranty.
7. According to the complainant there is no external damage or scratches on the gadget, the fault of the same was due to; its manufacturing defect. On the contrary the 2nd opposite party vehemently contended that the defect of the LCD has been caused only due to any external impact and their product is free from any manufacturing defect.
8. Admittedly there is no physical or external damage or scratches on the LCD Screen. DW1 who is the service engineer of the 2nd opposite party examined the impugned machine and prepared Ext. B1 report in which he stated that LCD panel broken call back to SUC. During cross examination DW1 deposed that against the column condition of set, the service – in- charge Mr. Suresh has subsequently recorded that LCD broken warranty not covered. However it is brought on record that this Mr. Suresh has not he person who examined the said to be damaged set. In Ext. A6 notice the 2nd opposite party took the contention that the warranty does not cover the damage due to any external cause beyond the control of Sony. The subsequent incorporation regarding the condition of the set in Ext. B2 and the embolished version in Ext. A6 are not fail to fortify the fathoms of Law. Since there is no visible external damage or scratches on the T.V. set we are not to place reliance on the opinion of DW1 who is an employee of the 2nd opposite party especially so because it was not for him to bide by his personal opinion alone.
9. It is untenable that the repute of a company as the 2nd opposite party should be put to test, which goes against the grain that consumer is king. This Forum is no doubt that if at all a mistake be rectified common parlance will be maintained by all.
10. In view of the above, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 2nd opposite party shall either replace the defective LCD TV set with a new one with fresh warranty according to the choice of the complainant or refund its price with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. In either of the event the complainant shall return the LCD TV set in question to the 2nd opposite party simultaneously. No costs calls for hence.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2011.
