DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 21/11/2017
CC/167/2017
Ramesh Menon.A.V - Complainant
S/o C Vasudevan
Greeshmam,Opposite Rice Mill,
Alampallam,Vattayar,Kollengode,
Pin- 678 506, Palakkad
(By Adv.MJ Vince)
Vs
1. Dealer/Authorised Signature
M/s Das Agencies,
7/10(1) College Road,Palakkad.
2. M/s Sharp Business System (India) Ltd - Opposite Parties
214-221 Ansal Tower, 38,
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110 019.
(OP 1&2 By Adv. Manoj Ambat)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1.Brief facts of the complaint
The complainant purchased a Sharp LED LC 40LE355M TV on 06/04/2015 from the 1st opposite party shop for an amount of Rs.42,000/- and they installed the TV set in the complainant’s house. Within a year of its purchase, the picture tube got damaged and on informing about this to the 1st opposite party, they contacted the service centre of Sharp at Palakkad and the defect was rectified. Again on 24/07/2017, the panel board of the TV got damaged and the Technician from the service centre took the TV and repaired and returned it after 10 days.
Again on 17/11/2017, the TV got damaged and the technician after inspection informed the complainant that the main board of the TV is completely damaged and it will take one month for replacing it.
The TV was having a warranty for 3 years up to 05/04/2018. But it got damaged within short period itself. Because of the defects occurred frequently in the TV, the complainant and his family members were unable to watch the TV programmes and the complainant who is working in Ernamkulam has to take leave for doing the necessary arrangements for the repair. This caused mental strain and financial loss to the complainant.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to replace the TV with a new one or to refund Rs.42,000/- which is the price of the TV and to pay Rs.25,000/- for the mental strain and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.5000/- as cost of this litigation.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to both opposite parties. Both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
3. The main contentions raised by the first opposite party.
It is admitted that the complainant purchased an LED TV set from the 1st opposite party. It worked fine for almost two years. But in the second year, the complainant made a complaint regarding the Television and the defect was immediately rectified even though it was caused solely due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant.
Subsequently, the complainant approached this opposite party with another complaint and demanded to replace it with a new Television. The service centre of the 2nd opposite party informed him that it is only a minor defect and can be cured within a couple of days. But the complainant insisted for replacement of the TV within warranty. The opposite party informed him that it is beyond the conditions and scope of the warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and no manufacturing defect in the TV. The damage was caused only due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant. 1st Opposite party is only a dealer and even if any defect is found in the TV set, it can be rectified by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs claimed in the complaint and it has to be dismissed with cost to this opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party also raised the same contentions as that of the 1st opposite party. It was contended by them that the two complaints raised by the complainant were immediately attended by their technician and the defects were cured even though it was due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the TV has no manufacturing defect. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
5. In evidence, the complainant filed chief affidavit and documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A3 . A3(Subject to proof) The TV set was produced which is marked as MO1. The complainant took back the TV on 16/02/2022 after executing bond.The complainant was examined as PW1. Both opposite parties filed proof affidavits. No documents were marked from their side. The Territory Service Manager of the 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Evidence of both parties closed. Complainant filed notes of arguments.
6. Issues arising for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite partie?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
Issues 1, 2 & 3
7. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant purchased the TV set from the 1st opposite party on 06/04/2015. It is also admitted by them that the TV became defective in the 2nd year of its purchase and they rectified the defect immediately upon receiving the complaint.
8. The complainant produced 3 documents which were marked as Ext A1 to A3. A3(Subject to proof). Ext A1 is the Retail Invoice dated 06/04/2015 issued by the 1st opposite party showing the purchase of SHARP LED LC40LE355M for Rs.42,000/-. Ext A2 is the warranty card showing of “1+2 years LED Warranty”(Special scheme) issued on the same date.
9. As per the complaint, the TV become defective again on 24/07/2017 and when approached the 1st opposite party told him that the company stopped this product in India and later on, the service centre of the 2nd opposite party repaired and returned it to him after 10 days. The opposite parties contended that the defect was only minor which can be cured, but the complainant insisted for replacement of the TV.
10. On 03/04/2018, the complainant produced the TV set before the Commission stating that it was not functioning. The opposite parties cured the defect by replacing the defective part and the complainant took it back on 13/08/2018.
11. This shows that the TV became defective 3-4 times within the warranty period itself. It is true that each time, the service centre of 2nd opposite party cured the defect by replacing its parts. But the defects in the main parts of the product within short period shows the inferior quality of the product.
12. Again the complainant produced the TV before the Commission on September 2019(15/10/2019) stating that the TV is not in working condition. As per his petition even though the mother board was changed by the opposite parties five months back, the TV stopped working because the replaced board was a spurious one having no quality. But this time no attempt was made by the opposite parties to rectify the defect in the TV. On cross examination of DW1,the territory service manager of 2nd opposite party, deposed that they were unware of the complaint in the TV and came to know about this only on receiving information from this Commission.
13. It is true that the complainant has not taken out any expert opinion to prove that the defects in the TV occurred due to the use of substandard or inferior quality panel board in the TV by the opposite parties. But from the evidence adduced, and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings, it is clear that the TV became defective 3-4 times within the warranty period itself( i.e. within 3 years of its purchase).
14. Even though the opposite parties contended that the TV became defective because of the rash and negligence use by the complainant,no evidence is forthcoming. The 2nd opposite party had assured in the warranty card issued by them(Ext A2) that the product is free from manufacturing defects, defective components and materials. But many of the parts became defective within the warranty period itself. Even though the opposite parties have cured the defects by replacing the defective parts and there is no deficiency in service on their part, they are liable for the ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ of selling inferior quality products which showed problems frequently and stopped functioning thereafter. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.
15. The complainant who purchased the expensive product would have definitely undergone mental agony when it became defective and stopped functioning within a short span of time. It is because of the Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is unnecessarily dragged for a litigation which caused financial loss and other inconveniences to him for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.
We direct the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the Unfair Trade Practice, Rs.15000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
In the event of nonpayment within 45 days , the complainant is entitled to Rs.250/-per month or part thereoff as solatium from the date of this order till the date of payment. Upon receipt of the aforesaid amounts the complainant shall return the defective TV to the opposite party.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Photocopy of Retail Invoice dated 06/04/2015.
Ext.A2 - Original Warranty card dated 06/04/2015
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of Identity card of Petitioner issued by Madhyamam Chief
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Witness examined from complainant’s side:-
PW1- Ramesh Menon
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:-
DW1- Chandrashekaran Nair,Territory Service Manager of OP2.
Cost:Rs.5000/-
