Date of Filing      : 22.10.2020

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 29.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                     ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.31/2020

THIS MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Mrs.R.Anuradha,

W/o.B.Ramakrishna,

No.15, Thirumalairajapuram

Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.                                                              ……Complainant.

                                                                     //Vs//

1.The Branch Manager,

   Girias, Girias Investment Private Limited,

   Plot No.6, TNHB Road, Opposite to Avadi Municipality,

   Avadi, Chennai -54.

 

2.LG Electronics India Private Limited,

   Located at Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road,

   Greater Noida, Noida -201310, Near Udyog Vihar,

 

3.AR Electronics,

    Authorised Service Center for L.G.Electronics India Private Limited,

    No.10/1, Thiruvalluvar Street, Vivekananda Nagar,

    Avadi, Chennai -54.

 

4.L.G.Electronics Service Center,

   Authorised service Center for L.G.Electronics India Private Limited,

   Door No.58, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, (100ft. Road,)

   Next to Hotel Ambica Empire,

   Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.                                       ..........Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                     :   Mr.R.Rajkumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party                                           :   exparte. 

Counsel for the 2nd to 4th opposite parties                          :   Mr.T.R.Kumaravel, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.08.2022 in the presence of Mr. R.Rajkumar, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr. T.R.Kumaravel, Advocate counsel for the 2nd to 4th  opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) to the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund back the amount of Rs.1,37,900/- being the cost of the television or to replace with a new television with two year warranty and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties with cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It is submitted that the complainant purchased a LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) from the opposite parties for a total consideration of Rs.1,37,900/-out of which Rs.45,101/- was paid as cash and the balance amount of Rs.92,799/- was paid through finance.  The complainant submitted that after four month of purchase, the above said TV started giving problem and when complaint was made by the complainant with the 1st opposite party, the service Engineer attended the complaint and in the month of May 2020 the LG television completely stopped working. When the complainant called the opposite party there was no response.  Thus aggrieved with the defective LED television the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above. 

Defence of the 2  to 4 opposite parties:

The opposite parties 2 to 4 jointly filed written version admitting the purchase of the LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) from the 1st opposite party and also admitted the defects as alleged by the complainant and submitted that the complainant approached them only after one year of purchase and also that whenever the complainant approached them with complaint it was immediately resolved as provided here under;

s.No. Request No Request 

date LSC Name Nature of complaint Repair Remarks.

1 RNP181106013676 06.11.18 AR electronics Demo Installation Demo& installation Done.

2. RNP.19120306693 03.12.19 AR electronics Panel Problem LINES ON SCREEN.STRIP CLEANED; SET FOUND OK

3. RNP200103007075 0301.20 LGC 1 No Power Panel & FFC cable Replaced; set Found OK.

4. RNP200606029354 06.06.20 Sun Max services No power Due to panel defect, we have got approval for product replacement as for customer goodwill gesture (as per customer request).  But customer denied and further demanded for additional 2 years warranty for the replacement product)

 

As per their own version, the opposite parties had admitted that they are willing to replace the television as a gesture of good will but did not want to extend the warranty period for two year.  It is further submitted that as the complainant did not agree for the said proposal had filed this complaint without merits and thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

In spite of sufficient notice given by this Commission the 1st opposite party was called absent and did not appear before this Commission and hence he was set ex-parte on 22.01.2021.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked.  On the side of 2 to 4 opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked.

Point for consideration:

1. Whether the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective LG Television Model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) has been proved by the complainant?

2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point:1

On the side of complainant the following documents were filed in proof of complaint allegations;

Purchase bill dated 05.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;

Bank Statement issued by the Indian Bank was marked as Ex.A2;

No dues Certificate issued by the Bajaj Finserv, Bajai Finance Limited  dated 10.08.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;

Complainant sent messages to the opposite parties office regarding the complaints for the defaulted television was marked as Ex.A4;

Copy of legal notice by complainant dated 03.08.2020 was marked as Ex.A5;

 

On the side of 2 to 4 the following documents were filed in proof of their contentions;

 Reply notice dated 05.10.2020 was marked as Ex.B1;

Job Sheets were marked as Ex.B2 to Ex.B5;

 Both the parties had submitted written arguments and represented that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and hence this Commission considered the documents produced by both the parties and written arguments filed by them for deciding the complaint on merits.  The contention of the complainant is that he had purchased the LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) from the 1st opposite party and the same started giving problem which was duly complained to the 1st opposite party which was attended by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party.  It is submitted that at one point of time in May 2020 the LG television completely stopped working and when the complaint reported the same to the opposite parties there was no response.  The complainant had not filed any job card in proof of the complaints made by him and serviced by the 3rd and 4th opposite party.  However in the written version filed by the 2 to 4 opposite parties, they have admitted the statement made by the complainant and the job cards were also produced by the opposite parties as documents No.Ex.B3 to Ex.B5 to show that the television sold to the complainant was serviced by them.  It is seen that on Request No.RNP200606029354 dated 06.06.2020 the nature of complaint was that “no power” and under the remarks it was provided “due to panel defect, we have got approval for product replacement as for customer goodwill gesture (as per customer request).  But customer denied and further demanded for additional two years warranty for the replacement product)”

Hence, it is clearly admitted by them that there was penal defect and that the television stopped working. Thus we have no other option but to hold that the product/ LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) sold to the complainant by the 1st opposite party and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and serviced by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties suffers with some inherent manufacturing defect.  Thus we answer the point No.1 holding that the opposite parties 2 to 4 had committed deficiency in service in selling a defective LG television to the complainant. 

 

Point No.2:

With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant this Commission feels that the proper remedy to the complainant would be to replace the LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) with two years warranty for the reason that if a new television was replaced without warranty the complainant would be left remediless if again that replaced television has some defects. We also award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant by purchasing the defective LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) at a huge cost of Rs.1,37,900/- but could not use it peacefully.  Cost of Rs.5000/- awarded towards litigation expenses.  The 1st opposite party is not held liable as they have only sold the product as a dealer and hence he could not be held responsible in any way for the defects in the product.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the 1st opposite party partly allowed directing the opposite parties 2 to 4; 

a) to replace the LG television bearing model No.LG55CBPTA.ATR (OLED 4K) with new one with two years warranty or in alternative to refund Rs.1,37,900/- (Rupees one lakh thirty seven thousand nine hundred only) within six weeks with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

  Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th day of August 2022.

     -Sd-                                                                                                             -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 05.11.2018 Purchase Bill. Xerox

Ex.A2 02.01.2019 to 28.07.2020 Bank Statement issued by Indian Bank. Xerox

Ex.A3 10.08.2020 No Dues Certificate issued by Bajaj Finserv, Bajaj Finance Limited. Xerox

Ex.A4 ............. Complainant’s message to the opposite parties office regarding the complaints for defaulted television and such messages was received by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A5 03.08.2020 Legal notice from the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

 

 

List of document filed the  opposite parties 2 to 4:

 

Ex.B 05.10.2020 Reply notice. Xerox

Ex.B 06.11.2018 Job Sheet. Xerox

Ex.B 03.12.2019 Job Sheet. Xerox

Ex.B 03.01.2020 Job Sheet. Xerox

Ex.B 06.06.2020 Job Sheet. Xerox

 

 

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                                 -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT