Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – 1)

                   Complainant Bismi Raj residing at Ottaplavunilkkunnathil House, Mallassery.P.O., Pathanamthitta filed this complaint before the Forum for getting a relief.

                   2. Brief facts of the complaints is as follows:  On 05.11.2014 complainant purchased a Haier LED LE 40 B 7500 Model T.V from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.40,990/-, which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  On 05.11.2014 itself the service personal of the 2^nd opposite party fixed the LED set on the wall.  After the installation the LED set fell down from the wall and it become damaged.  Complainant approached the opposite parties with the request of replacement but they did not turn up.  The 2^nd opposite party is the authorised dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  On the purchasing day itself the LED set become broken due to the fault in installation.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service towards the consumer and hence the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for getting a direction to replace the damaged LED set with new one along with cost and compensation.

                   3. In this case 1^st opposite party set exparte.

                   4. The 2^nd opposite party filed version with the following contentions:  2^nd opposite party is the franchise dealer of Landmark Co.  2^nd opposite party admitted that complainant purchased the LED set from their shop.  But they denied the allegation that the service personnel of the 2^nd opposite party installed the same to the complainant’s house.  According to the 2^nd opposite party after the sale of the product they registered in the toll free number of the 1^st opposite party and their service personnel installed the LED set.  After that on 20.11.2014 complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and informed that he himself changed the LED T.V set in a convenient place and it fell down and become faulty.  Moreover, he asked whether there is any possibility to replace the damaged one with a new one from the manufacturer using the warranty provisions.  As per his request, 2^nd opposite party registered a complaint on 20.11.2014 in 1^st opposite party’s toll free number.  As the dealer of the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party has no authority after sales services.  It is the responsibility of the 1^st opposite party to give warranty and guarantee.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  With the above contentions, 2^nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following Points are raised for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint is entitled to get a relief as prayed in the complaint?
2. Reliefs & Costs?

          6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1.  In support of the case of the complainant, complainant has filed proof affidavit and on the basis of the proof affidavit Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.  2^nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1.  After closure of evidence, both sides heard. 

          7. Complainant’s case is that he had purchased an LED TV set from the 2^nd opposite party, which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite party’s service personnel installed the LED TV set on the wall of the complainant’s house, but it fell down and get it damaged.  But opposite parties did not replace the same.  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit and adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Ext.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice of Rs.40,990/- issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant dated 05.11.2014.  Ext.A2 is the Haier extended warranty certificate issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant dated 05.11.2014.  Ext.A3 is the Haier warranty card issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

          8. On the other hand, the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that even though they sell the product to the complainant, 1^st opposite party’s service personnel installed the same.  They have no responsibility for after sales service and warranty.  For proving their contention one witness examined on their side as DW1.  No documentary evidence is marked from their side.

          9. Point No.1 & 2:- For the sake of convenience we have considered Point No.1 and 2 jointly.  On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the sale of the LED T.V set and the damaged caused to it.  According to the complainant, 2^nd opposite party’s service personnel installed the LED set improperly therefore it fell down and caused damage.  But 2^nd opposite party’s contention is that 1^st opposite party’s service personnel installed the LED set.  For proving complainant’s allegation, complainant produced Ext.A1 to A3.  On going through the document we can see that Ext.A1 to A3 documents were issued by 2^nd opposite party on behalf of the manufacturer 1^st opposite party and all documents bearing the seal of the 2^nd opposite party.  In normal case, seller deputes the authorised technicians for installation.  In this case, dealer categorically stated that manufacturer depute technicians for installing the LED set.  But they have not produced any evidence on document before us for proving their contention.  Regarding the dispute the conclusive evidence before us is Ext.A1 to A3.  All these documents are issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  So they cannot discharge from their liability.  Moreover a witness is examined on the side of the opposite party, who is a stranger and he has no relation with their case.  So the credibility of the said witness is doubtful.

          10. As per the direction of the Forum, complainant produced the disputed LED set and Forum inspected the same in the presence of the complainant, opposite party and their counsels and the senior clerk of the Forum prepared a mahazar in our presence.

          11. On perusal of the record and after hearing the arguments and evidence furnished by the parties, we are of the view that complaint is allowable.  Hence Point No.1 and Point No.2 found in favour of the complainant. 

          12. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to replace the T.V set with a new one with same specification along with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of receipts of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the amount of LED T.V set Rs.40,990/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Nine hundred and ninety only) along with cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realisation of the whole amount.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2016.                       

                                                                                               (Sd/-)

                                                                                       K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                                          (Member – I)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)   :  (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                   :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Bismi Raj

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Retail invoice dated 05.11.2014 for Rs.40,990/- issued by

        2^nd opposite party to the complainant. 

A2 :  Haier extended warranty certificate issued by 2^nd opposite party

        to the complainant dated 05.11.2014. 

A3 :  Haier warranty card issued by the 2^nd opposite party

        to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Linto. Y

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Bismi Raj, Ottaplavunilkkunnathil House, Mallassery.P.O.,                  

                    Pramadom, Pathanamthitta – 689 646.

     (2)  HAIERA APPLICANCES (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.1,

          Okhia, Industrial Estate Phase, New Delhi – 110 020.

     (3) The Proprietor, ATLANTA E MART, Near New Private Bus Stand,

          Ring Road, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

     (4)  The Stock File.