By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.         The case of complainant is that he purchased a LLOYDLED TV of 32 inch from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party. At that time of purchase the opposite party had assured 3 years warranty. The complainant and his wife are being teachers and the childrens are being students, the use of TV was only for limited period. The verification of invoice number, purchase date and product code it can be seen that the warranty extends up to 01/05/2021. On 08/11/2017 when the complainant switch on the TV it could find not working, thereafter on 09/11/2019 contacted the first opposite party and registered a complaint and he was issued a registration No.0911193435758 and that was communicated to the complainant on the next day through SMS. On 13/11/2019 a technician from the first opposite party came and issued a code KKGCODE asking him to send the same after solving the complainant. Thereafter a technician of the first opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and examined the defect of the TV and a photo was also taken. He said that there were no required accessories with him to rectify the defect of TV and he will do the same within two days and he said that he will bring required parts for the same. Thereafter there was no action from the side of both the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of the TV since the defect occurred during warranty period. The complainant purchased the TV since it can be used for the study purpose of children also. The act of the opposite parties caused financial loss as well as mental agony to the complainant. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against opposite parties. The prayer of the complainant is to refund the value of TV Rs.19,900/- and also to pay compensation of 80,000/-rupees along with cost of the proceedings.

2.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and both of them entered appearance and filed detailed version.

3.         The first opposite party denied the averments and allegations in the complaint. According to first opposite party the complaint is not maintainable on facts or law and the complainant is not a consumer as per the provision. It is contended that the product was purchased from second opposite party and there is no privity of contract and the complainant had not purchased any product from the first opposite party for consideration either in part or full. It is also submitted that the beneficiaries of the said product are the children of the complainant and they are being minors the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The opposite party submitted that the complaint was registered by one Muhammed Faisal Babu in the customer care of the first opposite party on 09/11/2019 and after call registration on 13/11/2019 the service engineer of the opposite party attended the complaint raised by so called one Muhammed Faisal Babu. The service engineer inspected the TV at the house of the complainant and found that LED panel was broken by some external force/hit.  The same was communicated to the customer and also informed clearly that the defect was not covered under warranty and so the call was cancelled and closed. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the LED TV on 02/05/2018, where as the complainant registered the complaint on 09/11/2019, which shows the instrument was in use during such period and it was working perfectly. It is submitted that the service engineer was taken photo graphs of the damage caused to the LED TV. The opposite party submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the warranty manual that any damage or breakage of LED screen resulting from accidents, misuse, abuse, tampering and mishandling will not come under the purview of the warranty conditions accepted by the customer. The representative of the company has already explained the point to the complainant on that day itself. The complainant admitted that the breakage of LED by an external hit. The opposite party had printed the terms and conditions that are specifically mentioned in the warranty manual. It was submitted that the opposite party has limited liability in the damages / breakage of LED panel caused from outside hit / external force. It is also submitted that complainant is at liberty to send the LED to laboratory for an expert report and also to produce before the Consumer Forum for verification.

4.         The opposite party submitted that he never denied service to the complainant but was ready and willing to repair the LED on chargeable basis as per warranty terms and conditions. It is submitted that complaint is prompted by the nominal court fee payable for filing the complaint before the Forum and therefore the false allegations and exaggerated amounts claimed without merit and which is illegal. The opposite party alleges the attempt of the complainant is to make fortune by filing the false complaint. It is submitted there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party therein and so the complaint is not entitled for any relief as claimed but liable to dismiss this complaint with exemplary cost to the opposite party.

5.         The second opposite party also filed version in tune of first opposite party.

6.         The second opposite party submitted that the complainant himself visited the showroom of the second opposite party and purchased the Television according to his own wish and thoroughly inspecting the product.  It is submitted that the complainant himself approached the second opposite party and demanded the television with brand name LLOYD manufactured by the first opposite party. The complainant was very much aware about its performance and that reason complainant demanded the said product from the opposite party. It is denied that opposite party made believe the complainant, that the product purchased by the complainant is having 3-yearwarranty. It is submitted that the complainant himself is aware about the warranty of the product provided by the manufacturer and for the said reason the complainant demanded the television with brand named LLOYD from the opposite party.

7.         The second opposite party submitted that he was not aware about the defect to the television purchased by the complainant, since no such complaint was made before the second opposite party by the complainant till the filing of this complaint and no cogent and reliable evidence is produced by the complainant to prove that he had made any representation before the second opposite party about the defect to the television before filing of this complaint.

8.         The second opposite party submitted that they are only a dealer of the television purchased by the complainant which is already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the National commission that in case of manufacturing defect the dealer is not at all liable. The allegation in this complaint is that the non–working of the television that to after one and half years from the date of purchase. It is submitted that if there was any defect to the product as alleged by the complainant and the same is proved by the complainant by the support of any cohegent and reliable evidence like expert opinion, in such circumstances the manufacturer only is liable for the same and for such manufacturing defect. The second opposite party is only a dealer and not at all liable for the same. The opposite party denied the allegation of deficiency and unfair trade practice against the opposite party. So, the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.

9.         The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The documents on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext. B1 to B3.  Ext. A1 is invoice number 1054444 dated 02/05/2018 for Rs.19,900/-. Ext. A2 is invoice print out revealing the warranty period of the product. Ext. A3 is print out of complaint and the communication from the Havel’s electrical goods. Ext. B1 is copy of two photographs. Ext. B2 is copy of warranty terms and conditions. Ext. B3 is copy of photographs revealing the serial number of machine and panel number.

10.       Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents and also notes of argument.

The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether the defects caused to the TV was covered by warranty condition?
2. Relief and cost? 

11.       Point No.1

It can be seen that the complainant purchased a TV as stated by the complainant in the affidavit and it is has proved through the documents Ext. A1, A2 and B3. It is also revealed that the TV became defective and a complaint was registered before the first opposite party as per Ext. A3. But the question is what was the defect caused to the TV and whether it was covered by warranty condition. The complainant himself admit that he registered the complaint on 09/11/2019 and thereafter 13/11/2019 the service technician attended the TV and a photograph of the TV was also taken. The complainant state that the technician told him that he will bring the defective parts and accessories to repair the TV within two days. But thereafter no response from the side of opposite parties. The case of the opposite party is that the defect caused to the TV was due to application of external force. The opposite party technician had taken a photograph of TV and he has produced a copy of the same before the Commission and it is marked as Ex. B1. The perusal of Ext. B1 document it can be seen that the LED panel was broken by some external force which is not covered as per the warranty condition. The complainant has not explained in the complaint or in the affidavit how the panel was broken. The complainant has not taken any steps to establish there was manufacturing defect to the LED TV.

12.       In the absence of evidence that the defect was caused due to manufacturing one, it is not proper to direct to repair TV as part of warranty condition. The opposite party has expressed willingness to repair the instrument on cost. It can be seen that there was no considerable delay in attending the grievance of the complaint also. So, we do not find reason to allow the claim as prayed by the complainant, since the defect reported to the LED TV caused due to external force and which Is not covered by the warranty condition.

13.       The issues raised by the opposite parties regarding privity of contract, dealer’s responsibility is not necessary to consider in this complaint since the claim of the complainant has not established legally.

14.    In the above fact and circumstances, we find first point against the complainant and so the consideration of the second point does not arise and the complaint stands dismissed.

Dated this27^th day of May, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

PreethiSivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A3

Ext.A1:Invoice number 1054444 dated 02/05/2018 for Rs.19,900/-

Ext.A2:Invoice print out revealing the warranty period of the product.

Ext A3:Print out of complaint and the communication from the Havells electrical

goods.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3

Ext.B1:copy of two photographs

Ext.B2:copy of warranty terms and conditions. E

Ext.B3:copy of photographs revealing the serial number machine and panel number.

Mohandasan . K, President

PreethiSivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH