Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/280/2014

M/s.Ramya Kalimuthu - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G.Electronics India Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.C.Jagadish

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   26.06.2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.280/2014

FRIDAY THIS  11^TH   DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Mrs. Ramya Kalimuthu,

W/o. Vijay,

No.19, TA Abirami Primera,

3^rd Avenue, Indira Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai 600 020.                               .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

1. L.G. Electronics India Private Limited,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Old No.10, New No.19,City Link Road,

Near NGO Colony,

Bus Stop, Adambakkam,

Chennai 600 088.

 

2. L.G. Electronics India Private Limited,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

A-Wing, 3^rd Floor,

D-3, District Center Saket,

New Delhi 110 017.                                     .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant              :    M/s. C. Jagadish & others

Counsel for opposite parties         :    M/s. T.R.Kumaravel.  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the value of the LG 42 inch LED TV and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the deprivation of use of the TV and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards deficiency of service and also to pay cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  she entered into Annual Maintenance Contract with the opposite party by paying Rs.15,646/- for their service.   The opposite party promised to rectify any repair and restore the TV to the working condition for a period of three years.   On 20.7.2013 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,646/- by way of cheque bearing No.442160 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank towards the consideration for the contract.    On 23.9.2013 he took it from the complainant’s residence for repair.  But till date he has not returned the TV to the complainant.  The complainant  further state that inspite of repeated reminder both over phone and in person the 1^st opposite party has not repaired the TV from September 2013 to  this date for nearly eight months, they had not cared to rectify and return the product to the complainant.    Accordingly the complainant issued a legal notice dated 23.1.2014 calling upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the value of the LG 42 inch LED TV and others.   The complainant state that the allegation in the reply notice that she has misrepresented that the LED TV was purchased in India was false.    The allegation in the reply notice that she deliberately suppressed the material fact is false and it is invented for the purpose of the case.    As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service; mental agony and unfair trade practice to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 1^st opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite parties denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that in fact as per information available to the 2^nd opposite party, on a complaint made by the complainant when the TV set of the complainant was taken by the 1^st opposite party for repairs it was found that the set was one which was purchased in Abroad and as such could not have been given an AMC in the first instance.   Even at the time of entering into AMC, the complainant had misrepresented that the TV set was purchased in India and when asked for the bill the complainant assured that the same would be given in the due course.   On inspection of the TV set, it was found that the panel needed replacement and the set being a foreign set the panel for that particular model was not available in India the same was informed to the complainant who refused to take back the set despite of the first opposite party also offering refund of AMC.  It would be false to state that any authorized service personnel of the 2^nd opposite party has given any evasive reply to the complainant.   Therefore the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant in terms of money or otherwise.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties.   

4.   The points for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled  a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the value of the LG 42 inch LED TV as prayed for ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deprivation of use of the T.V. and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards deficiency of service with cost  as prayed for ?

5.POINTS 1 & 2: -

         Heard the complainant counsel.   Perused the records.   The opposite parties counsel made an endorsement that there is no oral arguments except written arguments.    Hence it is treated as heard.   Admittedly the complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contract with the opposite parties as per Ex.A1.  The opposite party is an Authorized Service Centre for L.G. T.V.   As per Ex.A1  Annual Maintenance Contract the opposite party agreed to rectify all the repairs.   Ex.A1 Annual Maintenance Contract is for a period of three years.   The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.15,646/- towards Annual Maintenance Contract charges by way of cheque bearing No.442160 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank.   Hence there is a valid Annual Maintenance Contract subsisting.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that when the Annual Maintenance Contract is subsisting during the month of September 2013;

he reported to the opposite party that her T.V. is not functioning and there is no display.  The 1^st opposite party service representative after due examination on 23.9.2013 took the T.V. for service.  Thereafter the opposite party made repeated attempts for repairing the T.V. and he was not able to find out the spare parts and he returned the TV stating that the T.V. is purchased from Abroad and they were ready to repay the Annual maintenance charges. But the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that after agreed for Annual Maintenance Contract and receiving the amount repudiating the contract saying that no spare parts available without any record is not acceptable. 

6.     Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to deficiency of service of the opposite parties after entering into the  Annual Maintenance Contract the complainant was not able to enjoy the TV for a long time.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the cost of the TV and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the deprivation of use of the TV.  But the complainant had miserably failed to produce the purchase bill.  Equally the complainant has not taken any steps to prove the actual cost of the TV.   Further it is also seen  from the records that at the time of entering into the Annual Maintenance Contract the complainant has not disclosed to the opposite party regarding the year of manufacture and where the TV was purchased establishes that the complainant suppressed the material facts.  The complainant also has not proved the actual damage sustained due to the absence of the TV.  Further the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the deficiency of service.  But it is very clear from the records that the TV was purchased by the complainant from  Abroad which is not challenged there was no proper spare parts available in India also not disputed.  

7.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant mis-represented that the alleged  TV set  was purchased in India; when the opposite party requested to produce the bill for purchase of the T.V,  the complainant assured that it will be produced in due course.   But till date the complainant has not produced any bill showing the date of purchase and cost price of TV place of manufacturer etc.   Further the opposite parties contended that the complainant brought the TV for repairs, on inspection it was found that the TV was purchased from Abroad and the panel need to be replaced.   Since the panel being a foreign set and it was not available in India.   The opposite parties were not able to do service; and requested the complainant to take away the TV.   The complainant without taking away the TV gave evasive reply and issued lawyer notice for which suitable reply was given stating that “ the opposite party is ready to refund the Annual Maintenance charges.   After receipt of the reply notice the complainant filed this complaint in order to enrich some amount on the basis of Annual Maintenance Contract suppressing the material facts.  Further the opposite party contended that without producing the purchase bill; the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/-  towards  the cost  of  the  TV is unsustainable.    The actual cost  price  of  the  TV  is  also  not  disclosed  by  the  complainant,  even excluding   and   excise   duty  and   others.   Further without producing the purchase bills entering into the Annual Maintenance Contract and claiming cost of the TV cannot be permitted.   Further the opposite party contended that the claim of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for non use of TV is unsustainable because the TV purchased from Abroad lost the panel resulting no picture was brought to the opposite party for service without producing the purchase bill proves her cunning nature. Further the opposite party contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  But it is apparently clear that the opposite party without looking into the bill and necessary document entered into the agreement  of Annual Maintenance Contract.   As per Annual Maintenance Contract the opposite party is bound to service the TV.  Since the TV is purchased from Abroad and there was no spare parts available in India.   The opposite party was not able to service the TV and the opposite parties admitted to refund the Annual Maintenance Contract charges.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the Annual Maintenance Contract charges of Rs.15,646/-   with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint to till the date of this order  and the opposite parties are directed to return the TV as such with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the point is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the Annual Maintenance Contract charges of Rs.15,646/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand six hundred and forty six only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 26.6.2014 to till the date of this order i.e. 11.08.2017 and the opposite parties are directed to return the TV as such with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  11^th   day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 20.7.2013  -  Copy of letter from the 1^st opposite party to the

                               complainant under Happy living plan.

Ex.A2- 23.9.2013  -  Copy of Service Center receipt issued by the

                                1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3- 23.1.2014  -  Copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A4- 26.2.2014  -  Copy of reply given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A5- 12.4.2014  -  Copy of Rejoinder sent by the complainant.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -  

..Nil..

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.