Sujitha K
W/o Ranjith - Complainant
Hill view Chakkakkulam,
Mundur, Palakkad.
(By Advocate P Sreeprakash)
Vs
1. Havells India Ltd
9th floor, Vankarath Towers
N H By pass, Padivattom
Cochin 682 024.
Opposite Parties
2. LLOYD Electric & Engineering Ltd
159, Okhla Industrial Estate phase III,
NewDelhi 110 020 .
(By Adv. Saji Mathew)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A, Member
1. Brief Facts of the complaint
The complainant purchased a LLOYD LED TV Model 40L 40Flk manufactured by the opposite parties. She bought it from their dealer, Kochukudiyil Agencies on 12/09/2016 for a sum of Rs 27000/-. A warranty card offering five years service warranty from the date of purchase was also issued to the complainant. There was an Onam extended warranty at the time of purchase in which it was clearly mentioned that 5 years warranty is there on all models of LED TV from the date of invoice. During September 2018, the TV stopped functioning and only broken picture was displayed on the screen. Complainant contacted the cable operator and on verification, he conformed that there is no signal problem. Then the complainant contacted the opposite parties and complaint was registered on 11.09.2018. The opposite parties asked the complainant to contact their service centre. As per their advice, the complainant contacted the service centre and after inspection they informed her that inside screen in the TV is broken due to hit by a hard substance and it is not a manufacturing defect. So the repair is not covered under warranty and the complainant has to spend money from her pocket.
The product is expected to have a minimum life and when it is not having that, it shows that the product has a manufacturing defect. The complainant is quite sure that there is no such hard object hit on the TV as alleged by the opposite party. Supply of such product having manufacturing defect amounts to Unfair Trade Practice/deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to replace the TV by a new one of the same model or to refund Rs 27,000/- together with interest and to get compensation of Rs 25000/-.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. Main contentions in the version
The complaint is not maintainable and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant purchased the product from the dealer ‘Kochukudiyil Agencies’ and they were not arrayed as party to the proceedings.
The complainant intimated about the non-functioning of the TV to the authorized service centre on 9/09/2018. They after inspecting the product informed that the panel inside the LED TV was broken. Such broken panel can only happen due to any external factors such as mishandling of the TV and not due to manufacturing defect. The TV was purchased on 12/09/2016 and the complaint was raised on 09/09/2018. That is after about 2 years. This means that the TV was functioning properly and the panel got broken due to physical damage/mishandling at the complainant’s end. So it is not covered under warranty and the complainant has to spend money for repair.
The terms and condition set out in the warranty policy is binding on both parties and in the policy it is clearly stated under ‘Limitation of warranty’ that Breakage of LED screen/plastic parts due to mishandling is not covered under warranty.
The real cause of the damage can only be identified through scientific inspection. The complainant has not supported his complaint by any expert report.
The opposite party has never denied service to the complainant but only asked to pay for the repair as per the warranty terms and conditions. The opposite party is ready to repair the TV on chargeable basis.
The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint and it has to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext1 A1 marked. Opposite parties also filed chief affidavit. In the affidavit, the opposite parties stated that the broken panel photographs and warranty policy produced by them are to be marked. But, they have not produced any documents and so the opposite party’s evidence is closed.
Heard both parties
5. Main points arising for consideration are
(1) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary
Parties?
(2) Whether there is any deficiency in service /Unfair Trade
Practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(3) If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation
6. Point: 1
The opposite parties in their version contended that the
complainant purchased the product from the dealer and paid
the consideration, but the dealer is not arrayed as a party to
the proceeding and so the complaint is bad for non-joinder of
necessary party.
Here the complaint is with regard to the manufacturing defect in the TV. So the manufacturers are answerable for that and the dealer is not a necessary party.
7. Point no 2& 3
The complainant’s contention is that she purchased a TV manufactured by the opposite parties on 12/09/2016. She purchased it form their dealer, ‘Kochukudiyil Agencies’ in Palakkad and produced the Retail Invoice dated 12/09/2016 issued by them which is marked as Ext A1. As per Ext A1, the complainant paid Rs 27,000/- for the product.
8. According to the complainant, the warranty card issued at the time of purchase offers 5 year service warranty. There was an Onam extended warranty card at the time of purchase in which it was clearly mentioned that 5 years complete warranty is there on all models of LED TV.
But the complainant has not produced the warranty card. So we are unable to peruse the contents and conditions enumerated under the warranty.
9. Further as per the complaint, the TV stopped functioning during Sep 2018 and only broken picture could be seen on the screen. Since it stopped working within a short span of time (2yrs) it is definitely because of the manufacturing defect according to the complainant.
The opposite party’s contention in this regard is that their service technician, after inspection, found that the inside screen in the TV is broken due to impact by a hard substance and it is not a manufacturing defect. Hence it is not covered under warranty and the complainant has to pay for the repair. The burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the TV has manufacturing defect and not physical damage caused due to mishandling. But the complainant has failed to do so.
After closing the evidence on the part of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant filed two IA’s on 03/08/2021. (1) IA 119/21 – to re-open the evidence and (2) IA 120/21 – For the appointment of an Expert Commission for the inspection of the Television. Both IA’s were dismissed as they were filed in a belated stage and it will not serve the purpose to ascertain the damage of a TV that allegedly crept in during 2018.
10. The complainant failed to prove that the TV had a manufacturing defect by adducing cogent evidence or by way of an Expert Commissioner’s opinion and that the TV become non-functioning not because of the mishandling as alleged by the opposite party and its repair comes under warranty policy .
11 No deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties because the technician from their service centre attended the product as soon as the compliant is registered. As per their policy, the physical damage to the LED screen is not covered under warranty and it is chargable. The complainant has failed to rebut their contention.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs
Pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of November 2021
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 – Retail invoice No. KKP 002345 DATED 12.09.16
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL.
Cost: Nil
