DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of November  2020

Present   : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)

                 : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                    Date of Filing: 13/10/2017

CC No.144/2017

Mangalam

D/o.Arumughan,

Kannikkan Veedu,

Puthussery Post, Palakkad                                                      -           Complainant

 (Party in Person)       

Vs

1.Manager

Jamal Sales Corporation

  Court Road, Palakkad

  (By Adv.TN Sabareesh)

2.Techno Service

   Anjali Complex, Olavakkode Palakkad

  (Rep.by its Manager)

3.Micro Max Service Centre 7

  SLN Building Ayyappa Temple Road,

  Subrot Mukherjee Road,

  Jalahalli Circle, T Dasarahalli

  Bangalore Karnataka – 560 057

  (Rep by its Manager)                                                            -           Opposite parties

 (Impleaded as supplementary opposite parties

2 & 3 as per amendment in IA 397/2017 dated 30/12/17)

O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)

Brief facts of the complaint.

The complaint in brief is stated as follows:

The complainant  purchased a Micro max LED 32, B200HD-1 Television on 18/7/2017 for a price of Rs.17500/ (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred only) and paid the price in cash. The TV was taken to the home of the complainant who was viewing  the same. On the 20^th  August evening the complainant tried to  switch on the television and found that there was a crack on the television.  On 21/8/2017 the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party  firm and informed the matter. The worker  of the 1^st opposite party agreed to send  a TV mechanic to the complainant’s home and on 22/8/2017 a mechanic visited the house of the complainant and inspected the TV and  informed the  complainant that an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is required to repair the TV and if the complainant agrees, the TV can be repaired. On 23/8/17 the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party shop and enquired whether this much  amount is required to repair a  fault in the TV during the warranty period. The workers  of the 1^st opposite party stated that the TV cannot be repaired freely. Several times the complainant visited the 1^st opposite party in order to see the owner, but the workers  told that the owner has gone for HAJ and asked the complainant to return after 15 days when the owner returns and the matter can be decided after wards. On 14/9/17 complainant went to the 1^st opposite party shop and saw the   workers who scolded and insisted that the TV cannot be repaired and the owner told her that an old TV can be given in exchange. Complainant pleaded that since the TV developed crack during the warranty period the opposite parties are responsible to repair it. The first opposite party is a business firm in Palakkad town. It is therefore prayed that the honourable Forum may award Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party and award compensation for the loss and sufferings of the complainant of an amount of Rs.15,000/-, totaling  Rs.25,000/-. Complainant also pleads that the second and third supplementary opposite parties are also responsible for the loss of the complainant and award compensation to the complainant from, them also.

Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the 1^st opposite party to enter appearance and file its version.  In the version filed 1^st opposite party contends that statement in the first para of the complaint that the complainant had purchased on 18/7/2017 a TV for Rs. 17,500/-  (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred only) for ready cash is correct, but not correct her statement in the second para of the complaint that on 20/8/17 while TV was working complainant saw a crack in the TV which was reported to the 1^st opposite party and her other statements.   That complainant stated that as per her complaint on 20/8/17 a TV mechanic would be sent and accordingly on 22/8/2017 a TV mechanic came to her house and inspected the damaged TV and to repair the TV Rs.10,000/ demanded by him from the complainant and if prepared, offered to take the damaged TV and get it repaired are not correct. The statement in the 3^rd para is not correct that on 23/8/17 complainant went to 1^st opposite party’s shop for repairing the damage occurred to the TV during the warranty  period,  telling this much amount should not be charged and she was told by the first opposite party staff that the damaged TV cannot be repaired free of cost. Also statements are not correct and baseless that whenever the complainant went to the first opposite party shop, telling excuses she was returned, on 27/8/17 at the time when she went to first opposite party’s shop,  its staff scolded her and told her that they cannot repair the TV free of cost, if willing offered to give her an old TV.  Further her statements that opposite party committed deficiency in their service, the above TV became damaged during its warranty period, hence damaged TV should be freely repaired, the opposite party should be directed to give Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for repairing the damaged TV, for her mental agony first opposite party should be directed to give her Rs.10,000/-, are devoid of any value and are not legally maintainable. The opposite party further contends that it is a sales dealer of major companies’ electronic products. The second and third supplementary opposite parties are respectively techno services, Anjali complex, Olavakkode who are the service centre of the complainant’s TV and micro max service centre, Bangalore, Karnataka who are the manufactures of the complainant’s TV,  they are necessary parties in this case. According to the 1^st opposite party, in this case, service centre and the manufacturers are not made parties and therefore the complaint suffers from defect of non joinder of necessary parties.  Hence in this case question of maintainability should be heard as a preliminary issue and order passed accordingly. This opposite party further contends that the complainant purchased TV from this opposite party and used it in good condition.  Being used as such no manufacturing defects were there for the TV set. When trying to watch the TV on 20/08/2017, complainant’s statement that there occurred a crack on the TV screen is made for the purpose of this case.    At the time of delivering the TV or at the time of showing its working, there were no defects for the TV. According to this opposite party the scratch on the TV screen is caused due to the improper use of the TV by the complainant and her negligence. For the damage caused due to improper use and negligence warranty does not apply. To the TV purchased from this opposite party there are no manufacturing defects. Hence the TV cannot be  repaired free of cost as per law. If the manufacturer of the TV set or their service centre are willing to repair or replace the TV,  this opposite party has no objection for that.  This opposite party also contends that it is an unnecessary party in this case and to cause difficulties to this opposite party, this opposite party was made a party in this case. Hence this opposite party prays to this honourable Forum to accept its contentions  and dismiss the complaint with cost.

As per the order in IA 397/2017  dated 30/12/17 Techno Services Anjali Complex, Olavakkode Palakkad  was impleaded as supplementary second opposite party and Micro Max Service Centre 7,  SLN Building Ayyappa Temple Road,  Subrot Mukherjee Road,  Jalahalli Circle, T Dasarahalli Bangalore Karnataka – 560057 was impleaded as supplementary  third opposite party. Notices were issued to second and third supplementary opposite parties for their appearance and filing their version. But they did not enter appearance nor they filed their version. Hence their names were called absent  and they were set exparte.

Complainant and first opposite party filed their affidavits. Complainant filed IA 397/17 for impleading Techno Service Anjali Complex, Olavakkode, Palakkad   and Micro Max Service Centre 7,  SLN Building Ayyappa Temple Road,  Subrot Mukherjee Road, Jalahalli Circle, T Dasarahalli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 057  as second supplementary opposite party and 3^rd supplementary opposite party  respectively and for consequential amendment.  No objection submitted by 1^st opposite party. Hence IA allowed and  amendment carried out. Notices to supplementary  opposite parties 2 and 3 served, their names called absent and they were set exparte.   1^st opposite party filed IA 127/18 to cross examine the complainant, as no counter filed, this  IA allowed  and complainant was crossed by 1^st opposite party. Ext.A1 and MO1 were marked from the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Complainant filed IA 309/18 to cross examine the first opposite party as no counter filed the IA allowed. Questionnaire and answers were filed. 1^st Opposite party heard and filed argument notes. Complainant taken as heard.

The following issues are considered in this case.

1.Whether there is any deficiency in  service and unfair trade practice on the part of the

   opposite parties.

2.The relief and cost which the complainant is entitled for

Issues 1 & 2 in detail

Complainant filed Ext.A1 to support her pleas. Ext.A1 is original tax invoice which  proves the purchase of micro max LED 32, B20-HD TV for Rs.17,500/- on 18/7/2017 from the first opposite party. The 1^st opposite party produced Ext.B1 to defend its contentions. Ext.B1 is a copy of warranty terms and conditions of the TV purchased by the complainant from the first opposite party. Ext.B1 indicates that “the warranty will be applicable for 12 months from the date of purchase of the original product. (LED TV and remote). This exhibit also discloses that the warranty will not be applicable in the given  circumstances – The warranty will not cover any physical damage to the surface of the product (LED TV) including cracks or scratches on the TV panel (screen).”

We have closely examined the affidavits and documentary evidences submitted by  both parties and observed that during the warranty period of 12 months the LED TV purchased by the complainant became non working due to occurrence of a crack on the TV within a few days of its installation, but we view that the complainant contacted the first opposite party several times to repair and service the same during its warranty period of 12 months, but first opposite party demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant to repair the same.  We also view that the opposite party did not help the complainant in installing this costly TV in the complainant’s house nor gave advice regarding its installation, maintenance and usage. This is clear from her deposition before this Forum when she was cross examined as PW1 on 5/6/18 by the first opposite party. Both the above acts on the part of  first opposite party constitute very grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. Regarding the contentions of the first opposite party on the crack on the TV screen which occurred due to improper usage of the TV and negligence committed by the complainant, we observe that the first opposite party is not seen to have produced any evidence to prove the same. At the same time, we view that the TV became non working within a very few days of its purchase and installation which itself shows that the subject TV must reasonably have  some inherent manufacutirng defects; but to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant has not taken out an expert commission to inspect the TV and prove its manufacturing defects. Also the complainant is not seen to have informed the second and third supplementary opposite parties about the non working condition of the subject TV within a week of its purchase and installation. We also see that the first opposite party has not impressed upon and convinced the second and third supplementary opposite parties about the non working condition  of the said TV within a very few days of its installation and hence the necessity to repair / replace the same due to its possible manufacturing defects which must have caused its non  working conditions which enough demonstrates first opposite party’s deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further we also understand that ever since the second and third opposite parties were impleaded as second and third supplementary opposite parties, they did not take any steps to visit the complainants house, inspect the non working TV nor taken any step to repair and service the same or to replace the same which enough proves that the second and third supplementary opposite parties are also equally liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice meted out to the complainant in this case. We strongly observe that being the service centre  second opposite party and being the manufacturer of the TV the third opposite party should have gone to the complainants house, inspected  the subject TV, repaired and serviced the same or if not possible replaced the same with a new one of the same brand free of cost, as it  became non working within a week of its purchase and installation. At the same time we view that the complainant should have taken steps to take out an expert commission to minutely examine  the TV and find out its manufacturing defects alleged by the complainant and report the same to opposite parties. In this connection relevant points in complainants PW1 deposition on  5/6/18 before this Forum are to be noted. “TV hm§nbt¸mÄ AXv Fit sNbvXv Xcm³ BfpIÄ h¶nÃ. Rm³ Xs¶bmWv TV hm§n ho«n sIm­pt]mbXpw AXv Fit sNbvXXpw.  Service CentredpImtcmSv ]e {]mhiyw Bhiys¸«n«pw AhÀ Bcpw hcmXncp¶XpsIm­mWv Rm³ Fit sNbvXXv. Rm³ ImWpt¼mÄ  TV hoWncp¶nÃ. 18/7/17 apX 25/7/17 hsc TVbv¡v bmsXmcp Ipg¸hpw D­mbncp¶nÃ. TVbn ImWs¸« hnÅ manufacturing defect Aà F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ'. which proves that TV’s installation is done by the complainant herself which was necessitated due to non coming of first opposite party’s technician to complainant’s house for the TV’s installation, TV became non working  within a very few days of its purchase and installation from which we can reasonably assume the existence of some inherent manufacturing defects for the complainant’s TV.

In the light of  all these circumstances the complaint is partly allowed.

We direct the opposite parties 1,2 & 3 jointly and severally to immediately  repair and set right the subject TV of the complainant and make it in perfect working condition free of cost because it has become non working within a few days of its purchase and installation in complainant’s house during the warranty period of 12 months from the date of purchase and the opposite parties could not prove that it is due to improper and negligent use of TV by the complainant that damage has occurred to the TV and it became non working. Also no evidence for this produced by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are also jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings and mental agony caused to the complainant as a result of non working condition of  the subject TV. At the same time we cannot direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for repairing the damaged TV as direction is  hereby given  to the opposite parties  jointly and severally to perfectly repair the damaged TV of the complainant to make it in perfect washing conditions. 

This order shall be executed within 30 days of the receipt of this order;  otherwise complainant is also entitled to get 9%  interest on the total amount due  to her from the date this order till realization.

             .          Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of November  2020.

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

         V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                                           Member (President I/c)

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                 Vidya.A

              Member 

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainants

Ext.A1   -  Invoice No.P000072 dated18/7/2017  issued by Jamal Sales Corporation Palakkad which shows purchase of Micromax LED 32 B200HD TV for ready cash of Rs.17500/-

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Ext.B1   -  Attested copy of warranty statement and warranty terms and conditions of the

                Micromax LED TV purchased by the complainant

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1     -   Mangalam

MO1 – Damaged TV of the complainant

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost

                 Nil