The Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

The case in brief is that Sushanta Shit, the Complainant purchased one L.G. LED – 32LW4500 with consideration of Rs.47,500/- from Giriraj Agency, Rathigoli, Chawkbazar, Bishnupur, Bankura on 31-01-2012 and the TV set became unserviceable two times under the warranty period and the persons of the authorized service centre of the company (O.P. no.1) has been repaired the same in time.  Thereafter, the TV set again and again became out of order after the warranty period and the Complainant repaired it through O.P. no.1 by paying the service charges.  After that the complainant took AMC plan of LG Company (O.P. no.2)  through O.P. no.1 for that TV set but in spite of that the service person of O.P. no.1 did not take any effective measure to repair the TV set after visiting the set on 30-07-2015 on which the TV set became out of order again.  The Complainant communicated several times with O.P. no.1 over telephone but they suggested the Complainant to sell the TV set and to purchase a new one.

The Complainant filed a complain regarding the defective TV set before C.A. & F.B.P., Bankura Office and a mediation was held on 21-01-2016 in presence of the Complainant and O.P. no.1 and the O.P. Company gave an exchange offer with payment of Rs.26,125/-  but the Complainant not agreed with the conditions of the O.P. no.1.  Hence, this case.  The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the O.Ps. to replace the defective TV set with a                                                                                                                  

new one of the same quality or to refund the cost of the TV set along with interest.

Notice upon O.P. no.1 has been duly served and the O.P. no.1 received the same putting signature on the A.D. but did not appear to contest with the case.  Therefore the case has been heard exparte against the O.P. no.1.

The O.P. no.2 contested the case filing W.V. and contended inter alia that the present case is barred by limitation.  The O.P. no.2 also stated that the complainant never faced any problem within the warranty period and he enjoyed the paid services twice through O.P. no.1 after warranty period.  The O.P. no.2 further stated that the Complainant enjoyed AMC plan through L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and made false allegation that no remedy has been given by the Company after 30-07-2015.  The O.P. no.2 again stated that no unfair trade practice has been adopted by O.P. no.2 and the Complainant did not come before the Ld. Forum with clean hand and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

O.P. no.2 filed written argument.  We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. no.2 and perused the documents carefully.  Following points are necessary to discuss to determine the case.

                                                               Points for Determination

1) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

2) Whether the instant complaint is barred by limitation u/s 24 A of C.P. Act, 1986.

3)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

                                                            Decision with reasons

Point – 1 :  Admittedly the Complainant purchased one LG LED 32LW4500 with consideration of Rs.47,500/- vide Tax invoice no.LG/11-12/4197 dated 31-01-2012 from Giriraj Agency, Rathigoli, Chawkbagar, Bishnupur, Bankura.  So, the relation between the parties have been established.  Therefore, the Complainant is a Consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(i) of C.P. Act,1986.

Point – 2:  Evidently the Complainant purchased the LED set on 31-01-2012 and he filed this case on 27-01-2016.  Now the question is whether the instant complaint be barred by limitation or not.

At the time of argument the Complainant stated that the TV set became out of order two times within the warranty period and the Complainant reported the same to the O.P. no. 1, the authorized services centre for the company and every time O.P. no.1, repaired the same but they did not give any bit of paper regarding his complain or the service provided by them to the Complainant.  The Complainant again said that after the warranty period, the TV set again became out of order twice and O.P. no.1 again repaired the same on 16-05-2014 and 22-09-2014 and issued retail invoices on respective dates.  The further statement of the Complainant is that since the TV set became out of order repeatedly he took AMC plan of the O.P. Company by paying Rs.3,042/-  for the repairment of the TV set as per the advice of the Company personnel which was valid from 07-05-2015 to 06-05-2016 and in between that period the TV set became out of order again on 30-07-2015.

 Since the case has been heard exparte against O.P. no.1.  So, the allegation raised against O.P. no.1 remains unchallenged.  On the other hand the O.P. no.2 stated that the TV set in question never became out of order within warranty period but O.P. no.2 admitted the fact of repeated repairing of the TV set by O.P. no.1 after warranty period and receiving of AMC Plan by the Complainant to maintain the said TV set.

We have verified the documents carefully. The Complainant did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the TV set became out of order within warranty period but the retail invoices issued by the O.P. no.1 shows that the TV set became out of order repeatedly after one year of the warranty period.  The document named Happy Living Plan shows that the Complainant received the AMC Plan to maintain that set and paid Rs.3042.00  for the same and the plan was valid from 07-05-2015 to 06-05-2016.  As per the Complainant the TV set became out of order again in between that period on 30-07-2015 and the O.P. no.2 did not deny it.   

So, it is clear from the above discussion that the TV set became out of order repeatedly at same interval of time and the O.P. no.1 repaired the same from time to time.  In view of such circumstances it can be concluded that allegation of the Complainant regarding the disorder of the TV set within in warranty period is true.  The TV set in question became out of order repeatedly from the day of purchasing and lastly on 30-07-2015.  Therefore, it is a case of continuous cause of action and the Complainant filed this case on 27-01-2016, within six months from the date of last disorder.  Hence, we have concluded that the instant complaint is not barred by limitation as per section 24(A) of the C.P. Act, 1986.                                                                               

Point 3 & 4 :  Both the points are inter-related to each other and taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience.

It is clear from the documents and argument of the Complainant that the TV set became out of order repeatedly from the beginning and as per the written argument of the O.P. No.2 free service and paid service has been delivered to the Complainant on different occasion through the O.Ps.  Hence, we are of the view that the TV set is a defective one and for that reason it became out of order repeatedly from the beginning after some interval of time.

Moreover, at the time of mediation before the C.A. & F.B.P. of Bankura office the O.P. no.1 made an offer to exchange the TV set subject to the payment of Rs.26,125/-  by the Complainant but the Complainant did not agree with it.  In this regard we have followed the decision taken by Hon’ble National Commission, reported in 2017 (1) CPR 229 (NC), where Hon’ble National Commission decided that “Offer to make replacement indicates manufacturing defects in product”.  Relying upon the above decision we can concluded that there is a manufacturing defect in the TV set in question.

Besides, the Complainant took LG Happy Living Plan by paying Rs.3042/- through O.P. no.1 for the purpose of repairment of the defective TV set by the Company personnel.  That plan was valid from 07-05-2015 to 06-05-2016 and as per the Complainant, in between that period the TV set became out or order again on 30-07-2015 and accordingly the Complainant informed the matter to the O.P. no.1 but after visiting the TV set on that day, the O.P. Company did not take any effective measure to repair the TV set as per terms and conditions of the plan. 

The O.P. no.1 did not contest and the O.P. no.2 simply refused the fact of non-servicing the TV set after 30-07-2015.  The O.P. no.2 stated that the allegation of the Complainant is not true but he did not produce any bit of paper to prove his contention.  The onus was upon the O.P. no.2 to prove that the service has been provided to the Complainant as per terms and conditions of the plan but the O.P. no.2 did not produce any such cogent evidence.  So, the pleading of the O.P. no.2 is not tenable at all.

From the above discussion it is clear that the TV set is a defective one and there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps

Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get a new TV set or to get refund the cost of the TV set from the O.Ps.

Point 3 & 4 are disposed of in favour of the Complainant.  Thus the case stands.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence, it is

                                                                         Ordered

That the C. C. no. 06 of 2016 be and the same is allowed exparte against O.P. no.1 and on contest against O.P. no.2.

The O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to replace the TV set of the Complainant with a new  one of the same quality or to refund the cost of the TV set along with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of filing of this case till the realization of the money.

The O.Ps. are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as litigation cost.

All such orders shall comply within one-month from the date of this order failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this Order as per law and procedure.

Let a plain copy of this Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.