IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 31^st day of December 2020

Filed on: 11.10.2019

PRESENT:

Shri.V.S.Manulal President (in-charge)

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member

C.C.No.379/2019

Between

O R D E R

V.S.Manulal, President-in-charge

1) Case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant is a practicing doctor at Kayamkulam. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the L G products. Second opposite party is the service consultant and third opposite party is the dealer of the first opposite party. When the complainant visited the showroom of the LG products at Lulu shopping mall , the showroom manger explained the merits and advanced technology of L G Curved OLEDTV 55EC93OT 55” to the complainant. The complainant, enticed by the persuasive words of the manager, decided to purchase one L G Curved OLEDTV 55EC93OT 55” and paid the price Rs.2,42,500/- on the price after deducting the discount on 26-08-2015. The third opposite party delivered the TV at the complainant’s house on 09-02-2015. The technicians of the LG company installed the TV and connections were given to Airtel dish. It was working to the satisfaction of the complainant.

After 6 months the TV stopped displaying without picture and sound. When the complainant informed this to the LG, Customer center in Cochin office over phone, service personnel came to the complainant’s home and repaired the TV and some parts were replaced. The charge of the repair was Rs.295/- and the complainant received the receipt on 21-08-2018. After 2 months the TV started showing trouble again. The TV stopped abruptly without picture and sound. When the complainant intimated this complaint to the service center, service personnel came to the house of the complainant and examined the TV and found irreparable defect. The service man said that this might be due to the production defect and irreparable. They suggested replacing of the TV was the only solution. Accordingly, the complainant replaced the present TV with a new one bearing serial No. KL-7BV-3383 dated 15-10-2015 and the complainant received delivery chalan No. 1077, dated 15-10-2015. When the complainant demanded new warranty for the new TV, company personnels said the present warranty and extended warranty will be applicable from the date of replacement and no fresh warranty is needed.

The new TV was working well without any complaint. But abruptly on a day the TV began showing trouble and the TV stopped working without picture and sound. When this was informed to the service center, After examination they suggested that the display was lost and had to replace and it might cost Rs. 1,50,000/-. This display should be replaced at the expense of the complainant. The complainant contacted the opposite parties many times over phone and in writing. On 24-08-2018, 27-08-2018, 03-09-2018, 16-03-2019, and lastly on 10-04-2019 the complainant sent emails to the officials of the first opposite party. Lastly on 12-04-2019 complainant sent an email complaint to LG service India. They sent a reply and asked the complainant to contact Shine Chacko who is the area service manager. Thereafter, a service personnel came to the house of the complainant and after the examination of TV had suggested to replace the display of the TV was the only solution. The complainant was asked to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- for the same. The complainant was shocked to hear this since the use of the TV is under warranty and extended warranty. The TV became non –functioning within the period of warranty and the extended warranty and the company is legally liable to replace the display at the company’s expense or a new TV to be given to the complainant. The behavior of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant had suffered financial loss and mental agony and injury. Hence this complaint.

2) Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed separate versions.

3) The Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint version contenting as follows:

The complainant purchased an LG Curved OLED 55’ TV from the third opposite party dealer on 26-08-2015 by paying a sum of Rs. 2,42,500/. The TV got one year comprehensive warranty and additional one year warranty for panel module. Within two months of purchase, the TV got some trouble and the opposite party replaced the TV with a new one on 25-10-2015. Thereafter there was no complaint for the TV for next two years and thus the one year warranty period and the extended warranty period of one more years got expired.

After about 3 years, a complaint was received on 18-08-2018 and the service engineers visited the complainant’s home and on inspection found that the panel module and MPEG got damaged. Since the TV is out of warranty an estimate of Rs.1,24,180/- was submitted to the complainant. Since the complainant was not prepared to rectify the defect by paying the estimate amount, house visit service charge of Rs.295/- alone was collected on 21-08-2018. The demand of the complainant for replacing the TV with a new one cannot be acceptable after the warranty period and 3 years continuous use. The opposite party is prepared to replace the panel module and rectify the defect at the instance of payment by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service from the first and second opposite parties.

4) Version of the third opposite party is as follows:

Complainant had purchased an LG Curved OLED 55”TV from the third opposite party for a sum of Rs. 2,42,500/-. Averment in the complaint that after six months the TV set stopped displaying features and on 15-10-2015 a new TV was replaced by the first and second opposite parties and the replaced TV got complaint etc. are not known to the third opposite party. The third opposite party is only an authorized dealer of sales of the first and second opposite parties. The after sale service of the product is carried on by the first and second opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by them. There is no contract between the third opposite party and LG Electronics India Pvt LTD regarding after sale service and warranty. The third opposite party had never promised to do any after sales service or to replace the products in case of defects as they are only the dealer of the product manufactured by the LG. The sales officials of the third opposite party had explained the features and price of different models of televisions to the complainant which were displayed in the show room. The complainant had purchased the television from among many television sets available in the showroom. The third opposite party is an unnecessary party to this proceedings. The third opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service , unfair trade practice or caused any mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the third opposite party.

5) Evidence of this case consists of deposition of PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.

6) On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider following points.

(I) Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from opposite parties?.

(ii) Reliefs and costs.

7) Point numbers 1 and 2

There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased an LG Curved OLED 55’ TV on 26-8-2015 by paying a sum of Rs. 2,42,500/ which is manufactured by the first opposite party vide Exhibit A1 which is tax invoice dated 26-08-2015. Exhibit A2 is the extended warranty card issued by the first opposite party. It is also admitted by the both parties that within two months of purchase, the TV got some trouble and the first opposite party replaced the TV with a new one on 15-10-2015.Exhibit A4 is the delivery chalan issued by the first opposite party at the time of the replacement of the defective TV with a new one. According to the complainant when the new TV again stopped working without picture and sound the service men of the first opposite party suggested that the display was lost and had to be replaced and the cost for the same would amount Rs.1,50,000/- and the same shall be paid by the complainant. It is alleged by PW1 that though the replaced TV has a comprehensive warranty for one year and an extended warranty for another two year the opposite party demanded the payment for the replacement of the parts of the TV. On the other hand the first and second opposite parties contended that the TV has one year comprehensive warranty and additional one year warranty for panel module. It is further contended by the opposite parties that the complaint regarding the non-functioning of the replaced TV was received only on 18-08-2018, which is after 3 years of the use and after the expiry of the warranty period. Admittedly the service engineers of the first and second opposite parties inspected the TV on 21-8-2018 and collected Rs. 295 from the complainant as service charge and issued Exhibit A3 receipt. First and second opposite parties admitted that the panel module and MPEG of the TV got damaged and to rectify the defect the same is to be replaced.

The specific case of the first and second opposite parties is that there was only one year original warranty and the extended warranty is only for one year. According to the first and second opposite parties the warranty got expired on 14-10-2017 ie after two years from the date of purchase. On perusal of Exhibit A2 we can see that it is recorded on the top right corner of A2 as 2 year warranty. As per condition No.3 which is printed on the reverse side, the customer is entitled to enjoy, free of cost one year additional (over and above the existing warranty policy) functional warranty exclusively on panel/module only”. Thus the complainant is entitled to the benefit of an extended warranty on panel or module for one year in addition to the existing warranty. On a mere reading of the face page of the EahibitA2 a prudent man will be under the impression that the TV would be under the coverage of a warranty for 2 years. Though the first and second opposite parties contended that there was only one year comprehensive warranty for the said TV they did not produce the terms and conditions of the comprehensive warranty. In the absence of evidence contrary to Exhibit A2 we cannot accept the contention of the opposite parties in this regard. Moreover first opposite party who offered comprehensive and extended warranty for their consumers is the best person, to produce the terms and conditions of the original warranty. Admittedly the opposite party replaced the TV with a new one on 25-10-2015 above and a complaint was received on 18-8-2018.As discussed above the product is under the cover of the original warranty from 26-8-2015 for two year as recorded in the face page of the Exhibit A2. Furthermore as per condition no. 3 of Exhibit A2 the first and second opposite parties offered one year additional (over and above the existing warranty policy) functional warranty exclusively on panel/module at free of cost. Thus the Complainant’s TV got defective on 18-8-2018 which is within the extended warranty period. Therefore we are of the opinion that the fist and second opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defect of the TV by replacing the panel module and MPEG of the same under extended warranty which was offered by them to the complainant as per Exhibit A2 .

The  is a consumer oriented legislation enacted by legislature to protect the interests of the consumers against big business houses. The complainant has been deprived of use of the TV on account of above problem. The big business houses cannot get rid of their solemn duty to provide uninterrupted services to the consumer. The complainant suffered a lot for deficient service provided by the first and second opposite parties.

8) In these circumstances we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.

(1) We hereby direct the first and second opposite parties to rectify the defects of the complainant’s TV, which is manufactured by the first opposite party at free cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(2) We hereby direct the first and second opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

(3) We hereby direct the first and second opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of this litigation to complainant.

The above orders shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amounts will carry 9% interest from the date this order till realization.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 31^st day of December 2020.

Sd/-

V.S.Manulal, President (in-charge) Sd/-

Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil

Depositions

PW1 : K.Suresh

Date of despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::