DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 20th day of December 2022
Filed on: 29/08/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. NO. 331/2019
COMPLAINANT
Ameer P P S/o. Pareeth, Puthethu House, Market P.O, Muvattupuzha 686681
(Adv. George Cherian Karipparambil, Karipparambil Associates, H.B. 48,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682 036)
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1. M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 51, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar Extension Greater Noida, Uttarpradesh-201306 Represented by its Managing Director
2. M/s Jumbo Electronics Authorised LG Service centre Perumattom P.O, Puthupady, Muvattupuzha-686673 Represented by its Managing Director.
(Rep. by Adv. Padmaraj, KNB Nair Associates, 2nd Floor, Morning Star Building, Kacheripady, Cochin 682018)
FINAL O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant had purchased a LED TV (Model-No. 432H518A) from M/s Baker Electric Company, Muvattupuzha, the dealer of the 1st opposite party on 10.09.2017 for Rs.37900/-. Three years warranty was provided for the TV and the same has been prominently displayed in the top portion of the warranty card. While so, the set became defunct within 3 days from the date of purchase of it. The matter was brought to the notice of the dealer of the 1st opposite party. A technician attended to the complaint and replaced the panel board. Again, the set became defunct on 30.06.2019. The matter was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party. A technician who attended the complaint demanded Rs.5,750/- towards repair charges in spite of the fact that the defect occurred within the warranty period. Subsequently, a lawyer notice was served on the 1st opposite party. But no reply was given by them. The complainant has been deprived of the TV facility from 30.06.2019 onwards. The reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify defects of the TV free of cost within the warranty period amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the Opposite parties to a refund of the price of the LED TV Rs.37,900/- along with interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the loss of the refrigerator facility for a long period and consequent hardships.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties and the opposite parties received the notice, entered appearance, and filed version.
3) Version of the Opposite Parties
The complaint had purchased an LED TV from the dealer at Muvattupuzha on 10-09-2017. The further averment that 3 years warranty was provided for the TV is not fully correct. It is true that on the face of the warranty card a logo showing a 3-year warranty is provided but on the bottom portion of the same it is specifically provided that "Terms & Conditions Apply". On the reverse page for the warranty card, the Terms and conditions are provided wherein clause No.1 reads that "3-year warranty means 1-year comprehensive warranty available with all the new TVs and 2-year additional warranty on panel/module governed by below-mentioned terms and conditions." Clause 3 of the same reads that " This extended warranty offer is applicable on purchase of and is applicable only on panel/module of the said TV subject of the following terms and conditions." Clause 5 reads that "this offer entitles the customer to enjoy free of cost 2 years additional (over and above the existing warranty policy) functional warranty exclusively on panel/module only. Again Clause No.7 specifically provides that "Extended warranty does not cover any other parts other than panel/module such as Aesthetic/plastic parts, Power supply, Adaptor, Main cub, PCB, Remote control, Cabinet, Stand, accessories such as Cables (HDMI, AV, DVI, etc) 3D Glasses & Free Gifts.
The averment in para 2 that the said TV became defunct within 3 days of purchase and the same was brought to the notice of the dealer and a technician attended the complaint and replaced the panel board is denied as it is not brought to the knowledge of this opposite party. The technician from the dealer is not authorized to attend to the complaint especially doing the replacement of the Panel board. The complainant is put to strict proof regarding the said averment as these opposite parties believe that the same is made falsely with the malicious intention to give more thrust to the complaint.
It is true that after the 1-year comprehensive warranty period was over, a complaint was received on 30-06-19, which was duly attended by the technician from the 2nd opposite party service centre, and found that the PCB of the TV got damaged. As the damaged PCB is not covered under the extended warranty, the service centre rightly demanded Rs.5,750/- being the replacement cost of the PCB. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service in demanding replacement cost as the extended warranty does not cover the PCB.
It is true that a lawyer notice was received by the complainant which duly replied to a notice dated 31-08-2019 informing the true facts. There is no violation of warranty condition, in this case, hence there is no deficiency of service and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost as it is an experimental one.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had produced photocopies of 3 documents that were marked as Exbt.A-1- to A-3.
Exbt.A-1. Copy of retail invoice dated 24:05-2017.
Exbt.A-2. Copy of the warranty card dated 10.09.2017.
Exbt.A-3. Office copy of the lawyer notice and the track details.
The opposite parties had produced photocopies of 1 document before the Commission documents that were marked as Exbt.B-1.
Exbt.B-1. Office copy of reply notice dated 31-08-2019 issued to the counsel of the complainant.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on verification it is seen that the complaint is maintainable before this Commission. In the above case, the Complainant has produced photocopies of 3 documents before the Commission. The complaint is regarding the reluctance on the part of the first opposite party to rectify the defect that occurred during the warranty period and there has been unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, on the part of the opposite parties.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the date of purchase of the LED TV is 10.09.2017 (Exhibit A-1). On the reverse side of the warranty card (Exhibit A-2), it has been specifically stated that:
“1. 3 years warranty means. 1-year comprehensive warranty available with all new TVs and 2 years additional warranty on panel/module governed by below-mentioned terms and conditions.”
The opposite party has admitted in para 2 of the version that the service found that the PCB of the TV got damaged. PCB means Panel Circuit Board. Hence the 1st opposite party is liable to rectify the defect free of Cost. But that has not been done.
The opposite parties have admitted in para 2 of the version: Again Clause No.7 specifically provides that "Extended warranty does not cover any other parts other than panel/module such as Aesthetic/plastic parts, Power supply, Adaptor, Main cub, PCB, Remote control, Cabinet, Stand, accessories such as Cables (HDMI, AV, DVI, etc) 3D Glasses & Free Gifts.
Clause No.7 of the terms and conditions under the warranty card (Exhibit A-2) makes it explicitly clears that PCB (Panel Circuit Board) is covered under the extended warranty. Hence the opposite parties are bound to refund the cost of the LED TV purchased by the complainant. The opposite parties failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the extended warranty which will be tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The Opposite Parties shall refund the complainant the invoice amount of the LED TV of Rs.37,900/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand nine hundred only)
ii. The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the first opposite parties.
iii. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 20th day of December 2022.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt.A-1. Copy of retail invoice dated 24:05-2017.
Exbt.A-2. Copy of the warranty card dated 10.09.2017.
Exbt.A-3. Office copy of the lawyer notice and the track details.
Opposite parties’ evidence:
Exbt.B-1. Office copy of reply notice dated 31-08-2019 issued to the counsel of the complainant.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 331/2019
Order Date: 20/12/2022
