By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case:- The complainant had purchased a LED TV of LG company on 10-11-2016 from the Lulu Hyper Market at Mananthavady by paying an amount of Rs.23,900/-. But after 9 months the said product stopped functioning and the complainant informed the same to the 1st opposite party. As per the direction of the opposite party No.1, the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party to remove the defects through the toll free number of the company. After several weeks the complainant again contacted the company through toll free number, and in response to this complaint made on toll free number, one technician came to the complainant’s house and collected the details and taken picture of the purchase bill and warranty card and send the same to the company and gave the assurance that the defects will cure at the cost of the company. The complainant even waited till 30-11-2017 nobody come and not cured the defects as they promised and the complainant again contacted the LG’s Wayanad district showroom through No.04936 220993. Thereafter the complainant approached the first opposite party for enquiry. At that time the 1st opposite party told that the responsibility of curing the defect of the TV is vested with LG company and not with him. And after several enquiry at last on February 2018 the technician intimated to the complainant that his request is rejected by the company. The defect occurred during the warranty period, hence the defect must be cure and the opposite parties are liable to cure the defects. Hence this complaint.
3. All opposite parties served and the 1st opposite party not entered appearance , others appeared and filed version and contested the case.
4. The 2nd opposite party denied the purchase of the TV on 10-11-2016 and alleged that there is collusion with the complainant and the 1st opposite party and challenged the purchase bill also. The genuinity of the purchase bill is denied. The TV was manufactured as early as in July 2014 and it was sold to Nirmal Associates the Wholesale distributor of the 2nd Opposite party Company on 31-08-2014. On receipt of the complaint, the representative of these opposite parties inspected the TV and found that the panel of the TV got complaint and the same has to be replaced. On verification of the stock of spare it is seen that same model panel is not available now. Therefore these opposite parties are prepared to refund 50% of the purchase price as a special case calculating depreciation from the year 2015, one year after the actual manufacturing of the TV.
5. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the opposite parties are liable to repair the defects happened
to the TV or return back the purchase price?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
parties?
3. Relief and cost.
6. Point No. 1 to 3 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
7. For substantiate the case, the complainant produced documents along with the complaint. Complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW-1 and documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 & A2 .The documents produced by the complainant and the allegations set forth in the complaint are challenged by the 2nd to 4th opposite parties. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the opposite parties.
8. The second opposite party contested that the purchase bill produced by the complainant is not genuine one. The 2nd to 4th opposite parties admitted that the TV was manufactured by 2nd opposite party and it had panel defect and there is
no stock of the same panel for replacement. The 2 to 4 opposite parties saying that they are ready to give 50% purchase price to the complainant as they could not replace the same panel.
9. Here complainant has not adduced the necessary evidence before this forum to prove that within 9 months of purchase, it started malfunction, whether it is having any manufacturing defect is also remain not proved. Hence we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has not chosen to appoint of any technical person as a court commissioner to verify whether the TV supplied to complainant was having manufacturing defect or not and without the report of the court commissioner, it is unable to hold on the oral evidence of the complainant, that the TV given to the complainant by opposite party was having manufacturing defect.
10. So looking at the case of complainant on the background of material evidence of both parties, we are of the view, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove with material evidence that, the opposite parties are negligent & there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not replacing the TV as prayed in the complaint. We answer this points in negative.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of February 2020.
Date of filing:23.04.18.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant.:-
PW1. P. B. Ramesh. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. dt:10.11.16.
A2. Warranty Card.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
