DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 14^th  day of June 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                 Date of filing:  22/03/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

(C.C.No.41/2017)

Kabeer.U,

S/o Hussain,

Pathikkal House,

Kannadi Post,

Palakkad – 678 701.                                                                   -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

 V/s

1.  Kochukudiyil Agencies,                                                  

    A & P Complex,

    Stadium Bypass Road,

    Palakkad -1.

    (Rep.By its Manager)

2.  Haier Appliances (India) Pvt, Ltd,

     B1/A14, MCIE Mathura Road,

     New Delhi – 110 044.

    (Rep.By Managing Director/Manager/Authorised Signatory)

3.  S.P.Assosciates,

     Authorised Haier Appliances Service Centre,                             -        Opposite parties

     Vadakkanthara, Palakkad.

    (Rep.By its Manager)

4.  The Service Manager,

     Haier Appliances (India) Pvt, Ltd,

     Thuruthiyil Building, N.H Bypass,

     Chalikkavattom, Vytila, Cochin.

                                                          O R D E R

By Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a LED TV – Haier KED-32 M600-on 11.02.2015 from the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.20,800/- (Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred only) by believing in opposite party’s advertisements and propagandas and also by the submissions of the 1^st opposite party as per invoice number – KKP002989 dated.11.02.2015.  According to the complainant, after purchasing the said LED TV, he was using the same with utmost care and caution.  This LED TV set also carried a warranty issued by the 2^nd opposite party who is its manufacturer, which was 3 years full warranty provided by 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and satisfied by 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties.  The complainant was using the concerned TV set by strictly following the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty booklet.  If any defect occurred during the warranty period, all the opposite parties are liable to replace the TV set to the complainant without insisting on any charges to a brand new TV and they have undertaken the same in the warranty, as pleaded by the complainant.  When the complainant began to use the TV set, it showed symptoms of defects within the warranty period; according to the complainant, he noticed the defects within two months itself and the complainant has informed about this to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties and handed over the TV to the 3^rd opposite party for repair who informed the complainant that the electronic panel of the TV set is defective which is the reason for the non working of the TV set.  Complainant pleads that audio and video system are not appearing on the TV screen and the TV set became totally defective and useless.  Since the defect of the TV happened during the warranty period, complainant presumed that the defect noted and inscribed is a patent manufacturing defect and cannot be rectified and cured by servicing the same; the 3^rd opposite party collected handling charges of Rs.1,150/- stating that they would replace the defective TV set of the complainant, but they have not kept this promise and the defective set was returned to the complainant in the same condition without rectifying its defects stating that it is to  be replaced by a new one.  After noticing the defect, the complainant contacted the opposite parties on many occasions but without any positive results.  Hence, the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 17.02.2016 stating all his grievances and demanding the opposite parties to replace the TV set or pay the price of the defective TV set of Rs.20,800/- together with Rs.1,000/- by way of notice charges.  The notices sent to 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties were accepted, but notice sent to the 2^nd opposite party was returned undelivered, but even after receiving the above notices, by 1^st, 3^rd & the 4^th opposite parties, they have not redressed the genuine grievances of the complainant, as pleaded by the complainant.  Hence, complainant approached this Hon’ble Forum to redress his genuine grievances.  Complainant also pleads that manufacturing and selling of defective goods and even after intimating the defects to the opposite parties  by the complainant, non curing of the defects and non providing of a new TV set whose defect is patent would amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986; further the complainant is also entitled to get damages due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.  The complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to provide the complainant with a new TV set by replacing the old defective set with a fresh warranty from the date of its original delivery; if the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are not in a position to replace the aforesaid defective TV set, they may be directed to pay Rs.20,800/- which is the price of the defective TV set plus Rs.10,000/- as compensation for  mental agony suffered by the complainant, plus cost of this litigation etc. 

          The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to all the opposite parties to enter appearance and file their versions; notices to 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties were served but their names called absent and they were set ex-parte because they did not file their versions.  2^nd & 4^th opposite parties jointly filed their versions in which they contend that, the contents, allegations, submissions in the complaint are traversed and there for they are denied by them, except those specifically admitted.  The complainant has not disclosed any grievance, all the relevant facts of the case necessary for adjudication and hence, according to these opposite parties, complaint is liable to be dismissed.  These opposite parties also submit that complainant purchased LED model No.LE32M600 on 1^st February 2015.  When the complainant registered its 1^st service for installation as per service call number: CO20150211102809 and these opposite parties deputed one engineer who successfully attended the same and completed the installation work to the satisfaction of the complainant and after a lapse of 1 ½ years, the complainant again contacted these opposite parties for his product and registered a service call with number as CO20160825100550 and a technician was deputed to attend the service call.  When the technician reached the place of the complainant, it was observed that there are shades on screen which were noted and conveyed to the complainant that since the panel of the product has only one year comprehensive warranty there is need to pay for the difference amount.  When the complainant claimed one extended warranty, the technician asked for the warranty card and showed to the complainant that the warranty is for one year only.  Although the 2^nd & 4^th opposite parties approached the complainant for payment and delivery of the fresh unit but the complainant refused the same and afterwards sent legal notice.  Even after receiving the legal notice, the 2^nd & 4^th opposite parties again approached the complainant to convince him that as the product is out of warranty, complainant has to pay for replacement.  These opposite parties also admit the purchase by the complainant of one LED model Number – LE32M600 on 11.02.2015 manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party who has a worldwide reputation.  These opposite parties denied compulsory product replacement and state that the company has the discretion of repairing or replacing the product and replacement takes place where the product cannot be repaired; the complainant used the product for more than one and half years and afterwards he faced the first problem and he has not mentioned any reference number, call number etc. to show that complainant has approached the opposite parties regarding his product.  Complainant made his 2^nd complaint after 1 ½ years from the date of purchase of the product and at this time the product was taken for replacement, as contended by these opposite parties.   These opposite parties also admitted receiving of lawyer notice from the complainant.  The representative of these opposite parties approached the complainant to convince him that the product is not under warranty.  According to these opposite parties, complainant used the product for one and half years and after using the product for such a period, complainant cannot state that the product has manufacturing defect.  These opposite parties also contend that they had provided immediate service to the complainant and due to his illegal demand, the replacement was not completed.  Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed to these opposite parties.  Therefore, these opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint. 

          Complainant filed chief affidavit and also 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties.  From the side of the complainant Ext.A1 to A4 were marked.  Complainant filed IA 91/18 to reopen the evidence.  From the side of opposite parties no documents were marked.  Both the complainant and opposite parties were heard. 

           The following issues arise in this case.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties?
2. If yes, remedy and relief available to the complainant ?

Issues 1 & 2

Complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.  The complainant has purchased the LED TV from the 1^st opposite party on 11.02.2015.  Original cash invoice dated.11.02.2015 is marked as Ext.A1 which shows invoice number and date, name and address of the purchaser, model of the product, total amount for the product etc.  After the purchase of the said TV, he was using the same with all care.  According to the complainant, the LED TV has three years full warranty provided by the opposite parties and he was using the concerned TV strictly following the terms and conditions contained in the warranty booklet and if any defect occurres within the warranty period, the opposite parties are liable to replace the TV set to the complainant without any charges which have been undertaken by them in the warranty.  When complainant began to use the TV set, it showed symptoms of defects during the warranty period and according to the complainant the defects were noticed within two months itself about which the opposite parties were informed and the TV set was handed over to the 3^rd opposite party for repairs who collected handling charges of Rs.1,150/- from the complainant.  The order form dated.08.10.2016 issued by the 3^rd opposite party is marked as Ext.A2 which indicates receipt of Rs.1,150/- from the complainant towards handling charges to the said TV.  According to the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party also told the complainant that they would replace complainant’s defective TV set, but they have not kept the promise and the defective TV set was returned to the complainant in the same condition without rectifying the already had defects.  Later, on 17.12.2016 complainant sent registered lawyer notices to all the opposite parties stating his grievances and demanding them either to replace the TV set or to refund the invoice price of the TV set of Rs.20,800/- plus notice charges of Rs.1,000/-; copies of lawyer notices issued to all the opposite parties along with postal receipts and acknowledgement cards are marked as Ext.A3 series.  The notices sent to the 1^st, 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties were received by them, but the notice sent to the 2^nd opposite party was returned undelivered.  Returned registered lawyer notice sent to 2^nd opposite party was marked as Ext.A4.  Even after receiving lawyer notices, 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have not redressed genuine grievances of the complainant, as pleaded by the complainant.  Hence, according to the complainant the Hon’ble Forum was approached to redress his grievances.  In their version, 2^nd & 4^th opposite parties denied all the contents, allegations, submissions and contentions raised in the complaint.  2^nd and 4^th opposite parties contend that in the present case, when complainant reported unsatisfactory performance of his LED TV purchased from the 1^st opposite party, the same was attended to by the service engineers of these opposite parties.  Complainant registered 1^st service for installation through service call number and installation to the satisfaction of the complainant was completed.  Again after one and half years complainant registered another service call number, and a technician was deputed to attend the service call who observed that there are shades on screen of the said TV and complainant was told that the panel was defective, and, since it has only a comprehensive one year warranty, the complainant has to pay the difference amount.  When the complainant claimed one extended warranty, the technician demanded the warranty card and showed the complainant that the warranty is for one year.  These opposite parties also proceeded for replacement and approached the complainant for receiving payment from them and delivery of a fresh unit to the complainant, but the complainant refused the same and sent them legal notices.  According to the opposite parties 2 & 4 even after receiving the legal notice, they again approached the complainant to convince him that his product is out of warranty and he has to pay for replacement.

From the documentary evidences produced before this Forum, we understand that, the LED TV purchased by the complainant has started showing complaints during the currency of its warranty period; it is also observed that on 08.10.2016 the 3^rd opposite party has collected Rs.1,150/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred and fifty only) from the complainant towards handling charges in respect of the said TV which proves that the TV sold to the complainant had some manufacturing defect due to which the opposite parties were not ready for repairing the electronic panel of the said TV but strictly insisting on its paid replacement, stating that the disputed defective TV set has only one year comprehensive warranty for which no documentary proof by means of warranty card is not seen produced by these opposite parties.  Further, we understand that, if a brand new TV is purchased and within two years of its date of purchase it becomes defective, then the defect can be considered as its manufacturing defect which has happened in this case also.  Hence, we view that the opposite parties were found to have sold to the complainant a brand new TV set with manufacturing defects and seen not to have provided the complainant with free of charge product replacement which shows that, opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Under these circumstances complaint is allowed. 

We direct the opposite parties 1, 2, 3 & 4 to be jointly and severally liable to replace the complainant’s disputed defective TV set with a brand new properly working same model TV set within one month; if not possible, we order the opposite parties 1, 2, 3 & 4 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the invoice price of the disputed defective TV set of Rs.20,800/- (Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred only) within one month.  After the proper execution of the order, the complainant is directed to return the disputed defective TV set in his possession to the 1^st opposite party.

This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order; or else interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due to the complainant should also be paid to him from the date of this order till realization.

 Pronounced in the open court on this the 14^th day of June 2018.

          Sd/-

                  Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                        Sd/-       

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

          Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                   Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  Original cash invoice dated.11.02.2015 issued by 1^st opposite party to the

             complainant

Ext.A2          -  Order form evidencing receipt of Rs.1,150/-dated.08.10.16

   from the complainant towards handling charges

Ext.A3 series -  Copy of lawyer notices dated.17.12.2016 issued to all the opposite

   parties along with postal receipts and acknowledgement cards

Ext.A4          -  Undelivered and returned lawyer notice sent to 2^nd opposite party with

             endorsement “left”

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost and compensation for mental agony - Nil