Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant purchased a brand new LG Plasma 50 inch PB560B TV set from 3^rd opposite party on 01/07/2015 by paying an amount of Rs. 52,500/-.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the T.V set and the 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of the 1^st opposite party.  It is contended that on 12/08/2015 onwards.  The T.V set failed to work properly and the same was reported to 3^rd opposite party.  On 22/08/2015 the 2^nd opposite party’s representative was repaired the T.V set for an amount of Rs. 2,813/- and received the amount from the complainant.  According to the complainant the failure of the TV caused due to the lizard waste and closed certain hole of the TV set by them.  It is contended that the charging of the above said amount for the repairing of the TV set is against the terms and conditions and the warranty and also pleaded that the opposite parties sold a defective product to the complainant as such though committed deficiency in service against the complainant.  Even though the complainant approached the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party for refund of the price of the TV set compensation etc. etc, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were reluctant to redress the grievances of the complainant.  At last he sent legal notice to opposite parties but that also invain.   Hence, the complaint for the refund of the TV price Rs. 52,500/- compensation cost etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint, and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite party 1 to 3 received notice but 2^nd opposite party alone appeared before the Forum and filed their version.  It is seen from the record that 1^st opposite party’s notice is delivered to him on 07/12/2016 as per post office track report.  The 3^rd opposite party also received notice but failed to appear before the Forum.  Therefore, this Forum declared exparte against opposite party 1^st and 3^rd on 27/12/2016, 14/03/2016 respectively.  The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows.  According to 2^nd opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is admitted that the complainant made a complaint regarding the nonfunctioning above mentioned TV set.  It is contended that the negligent attitude and poor standard of the complainant to maintain the TV set caused the attack of the lizard so that the electronic equipment of the TV set has become wrong.  It is further contended that the above said TV has no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and the defect was caused due to the lizard waste.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party as such the complaint of the complainant has to be dismissed with cost him.
4. On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.
   1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
   2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
   3. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1. Through PW1 Ext. A1 to A5 series were marked.  Ext.A1 is the retail Invoice dated: 01/07/2015 issued by 3^rd opposite party.  Ext. A2 is the bill dated: 22/08/2015 issued by 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. A3 is the Notice dated: 07/09/2015.  Ext. A4 series are the postal receipts dated: 08/09/2015 issued from postal department.  Ext. A5 series are postal acknowledgement card dated:09/09/2015.  On the other side 2^nd opposite party he who filed a proof affidavit in place of chief examination and he is examined as DW1 in this case.  Through DW1 Ext. B1 & B2 were also marked. Ext. B1 is the job sheet dated:  16/08/2015 & 22/08/2015.  Ext. B2 is the notice dated: 07/09/2017.  After the closure of evidence of both sides we heard the complainant and 2^nd opposite parties in this case.  At the time of hearing this Forum suo-moto marked the post office track report record to prove that the 1^st opposite party’s summons is served to him on 07/12/2016.  The tract report is marked as Ext. X1.
6. Point.No.1:- The contesting 2^nd opposite party pleaded that this case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we appreciate the evidence before us it can easily reveals that the complainant he who purchased the TV set for an amount of Rs. 52,500/- from 3^rd opposite party and it also reveals that 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of this TV set and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized agent of 1^st opposite party.  It is to see that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are set exparte in this case.  The complainant PW1 contended that he purchased the TV set from 3^rd opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 52,500/-.  Since 3^rd opposite party is set exparte all the contention raised against 3^rd opposite party can be considered as admitted.  On the basis of the above finding we can easily find that the complainant is a consumer of 1^st and 3^rd opposite party and 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. 
7. Point No.2&3:- For the sake of convenience we would like consider point no. 2 and 3 together.  The complainant PW1 through his proof affidavit it is proved that he purchased a TV set for an amount of Rs. 52,500/- from the 3^rd opposite party and it also proved that 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the TV set and 2^nd opposite party is the authorized person of 1^st opposite party at Pathanamthitta.  It is also come out in evidence to see that on 22/08/2015 the opposite party’s persons had taken the TV set for necessary repairing.  It is also revealed that 3^rd opposite party received an amount of Rs. 2,813/- from PW1 as the repairing charge of the TV set.  It is deposed that for the repayment of the TV set the 2^nd opposite party had taken 53 days.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the PW1 it is clear that PW1 clearly alleged defect of the product as well as deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  When we look into evidence adduced by PW1 in this case nothing to see that the TV set is having any mechanical defect.  If PW1 relying on any mechanical/manufacturing defect of the TV set what prevented the PW1 to prove this issue with the support of an expert evidence.  The remaining issue to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service with regard to the service of the TV set as alleged by the complainant.  It is admitted that the 2^nd opposite party received an amount of Rs. 2,813/- from PW1 as repairing charge since there is no warranty for rectifying the mistake which happened due to lizard waste.  It is true that the opposite party alleged that the negligent and poor standard handling of the TV set is the reason for the failure of the TV set.  When we examine the deposition of PW1 in cross-examination he answered to a question “താങ്കളുടെ കാര്യക്ഷമതയിലില്ലാതെയുള്ളതും നോട്ടപ്പിശകുമൂലവും പല്ലി കേറി കാഷ്ഠിച്ചുവച്ചതുമൂലം ഉണ്ടായ short circuit മൂലമാണ് TV കേടായത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു.  (A) ശരിയല്ല.  (Q) Short circuit, power failures എന്നിവ മൂലമുണ്ടാകുന്ന  defects ന് Op ക്ക് ബാദ്ധ്യതയില്ല എന്ന് warranty card - ൽ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. അത് ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ പെട്ടിരുന്നോ  (A) ഇല്ല.  Manufacturing defect എന്താണ്.  (A) TV യുടെ മുകളിൽ 1/2 ഇഞ്ച് വ്യാസത്തിലുള്ള ഒരു ദ്വാരമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അതാണ് Manufacturing defect”.
8. In the light of the above deposition it is to be inferred that the failure of the TV set occurred as a result of a ½ inch diameter hole in the TV set.  No doubt if a ½ inch diameter hole was present in a TV set a chance of the entrance of insects cannot be ruled out.  When we peruse the deposition of DW1 in cross we can see that the ½ inch diameter hole is a reason for the failure of the TV set.  He deposed “Air കയറാൻ മാത്രമായി ഈ TV set നിർമ്മിച്ചിരുന്നുവെങ്കിൽ insects കയറാനുള്ള സാദ്ധ്യത വിരളമാകുമായിരുന്നുവല്ലോ  (A) ആ രീതിയിൽ ആണ് നിഞമ്മിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത്. (Q) വളരെ ചെറിയ ദ്വാരം ഇട്ടിരുന്നാലും  Air circulation കിട്ടുമായിരുന്നല്ലോ. (A) കിട്ടും. TV repair ചെയ്തത് warranty period ൽ ആണ്. Repair ചെയ്ത സമയത്ത് നിങ്ങൾ Rs.2,813/-വാങ്ങിയിരുന്നില്ലേ (A) പല്ലി  കയറി ഉണ്ടായ defect ആയതിനാൽ  material warranty ൽ പെടുന്നില്ല.   Service charge ഈടാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല.”  On the basis of the deposition we can come to a clear conclusion to the effect that at the time of repairing the TV set was having a warranty.  On the basis of that warranty DW1 admitted that no service charge was imposed against PW1, for rectifying the defect and charged only for the material.  In the light of the admission of DW1 with regard to the warranty we can safely come to a conclusion that there is no justification on the side of 2^nd opposite party for the receipt of Rs. 2,813/- from PW1.  It is to see that the presence of a small hole in TV set is sufficient for air circulation as per the opinion of DW1. Even if DW1 managed the operation of TV set to any extend the chance of entry of lizard could not be ruled out.  Therefore, it is the duty of opposite party 1 & 2 to reduce the diameter of ½ inch hole which is present in TV set.
9. In order to substantiate the price paid to the 3^rd opposite party the complainant produced and marked Ext. A1 & A2.  Ext. A3 is the copy of the letter dated: 07/09/2015 which was issued to 3^rd opposite party demanding the refund of the price of the TV set compensation etc. etc from the opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party also produced the same copy of the legal notice and marked as Ext. B2 in this case.  Ext. A4 and A5 are the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card to prove the issuance of Ext. A3 notice.  Ext. B1 is a job sheet issued by 3^rd opposite party to the complainant showing the amount                     Rs. 2,813/- which was received on 22/08/2015.  On the basis of the above discussion we can easily inferred that at the time of the failure of the TV set a warranty was existing in favour of the complainant and also find that there is no justification on the side of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party for receiving the amount of Rs. 2,813/- from the complainant.  We also find that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are also liable to reduce the size of the hole seen in the TV set to avoid the entry of insects.  It is to see that 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are exparte in this case, therefore the evidence adduced by PW1 against 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned.  Considering the nature and circumstances of this case 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to the complainant.
10.  In the result we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are here by directed to refund the amount Rs. 2,813/- (Rupees Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirteen only) with 10% interest to the complainant from 22/08/2015 onwards (date of Ext. B1).
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also directed to reduce the size of the hole of the TV to prevent the entry of insect within one month of the receipt of this order.
3. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) and a cost of                       Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of July, 2017.             

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                          P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                 (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  George Abraham

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Retail Invoice dated: 01/07/2015 issued by 3^rd opposite party.

A2 :  bill dated: 22/08/2015 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

A3 :  Notice dated: 07/09/2015. 

A4 series : postal receipts dated: 08/09/2015 issued from postal department.

A5 series : postal acknowledgement card dated:09/09/2015.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

DW1: Mathew George.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 : Job sheet dated: 22/08/2015.

B2 : Notice dated: 07/09/2017.

Court Exhibit:

X1 :  The track report.

                                                                                                     (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) George Abraham @ Jose,

                    S/O Skaria George, Kachanathu House,

                    Nellickamon P.O, Angadi Village,

                    Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta. 

(2) The Managing Director,

                    L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.51,

                    Surajpur – Kasna Road, Udyog Vihar,

                    Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306.

               (3) The Manager,

                    LG Electronics India Private Limited,

                    MG care centre, Thykoottathil building,

                    Building No.396, Opp. Catholicate College,

                    Makkamkunnu,  Pathanamthitta District.

4. The Managing Director,

                    Mini Super Shoppe, Aronnil Complex,

                    Pazhavangadi.P.O, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta.

.             (5) The Stock File.