IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 27th day of July 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.24/2022 (Filed on 03/02/2022)
Complainant : Udayabhanu S/o Chakrapani,
Lime Shell Colony,
Kumarakam P.O,
Kottayam - 686 587.
(By Advs: Rahul Gopinath & Sankar Ram.N)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. LG Electronics India (P) Limited,
A Wing (3rd Floor) D-3,
District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi – 110 017.
( By Advs: Zakhier Huzzain & A. Sunitha)
2. Nandilath Gmart,
Global Electronics & Home Appliances Plaza,
Karottukunnel Arcade,
XIII/1130 A,B,C,
Opp. Nehru Stadium,
Nagampadam,
Kottayam - 686 001
( By Adv: K.A Bijoy)
3. CPP Assistance Services (P) Limited,
Ground Floor, Wing – A,
Golf View Corporate Tower – A,
Golf Course Road, Sector 42,
Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002.
( By Advs: M. Nikhildev & Sanjeev Nirwani)
4. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,
Ist Floor, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation,
H.T Parekh Marg, Church Gate,
Mumbai – 400 020.
( By Advs: Saji Issac K.J & Nithin Sunny Alex)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Complainant‘s case is as follows:
Attracted by various advertisement of the first and second opposite parties the complainant purchased a LED LG 32LK526BPTA model television for his domestic use on 30-08-2018 from the second opposite party for a total amount of Rs. 18,990/- by availing instalment facility provided by Bajaj Finance. As per the advise of the second opposite party the complainant availed 3 year extended warranty in addition to the first year warranty provided by the first opposite party by paying an additional amount of Rs. 3,705/-. The third opposite party issued membership No. AC1677300 dated 13-09-2018. Later it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the third opposite party is providing extended warranty as per some group insurance policy.
After a few weeks of purchase the television showed display complaints and the second opposite party sent technicians to the residence of the complainant and it was rectified. But again the same display complaint repeated and on 10-10-2021 the complainant approached second opposite party and after examining the television set it is informed that the fault is not curable. As the extended warranty was in force the complainant demanded the replacement of the damaged television set. But the said demand was denied by the opposite parties. According to the complainant during the extended warranty period the opposite parties are duty bound to either to repair the television set or to replace or compensate the complainant. As the opposite parties failed to comply with their duty there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged TV or to pay the price of the TV to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
Upon notice opposite parties except additional fourth opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed separate versions. Hence, additional fourth opposite party declared as ex-parte.
The 1 st opposite party filed version contenting as follows:-
The first opposite party is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act having registered office at New Delhi. The first opposite party admitted the purchase of the LED-LG 32LK526BPTA by the complainant. The standard warranty period of the said television provided by the first opposite party was one year from the date of purchase. The extended warranty and insurance to the television has been provided by a third party. It is submitted in the version that after enjoying TV set for more than 3 years, the complainant approached the service centre on 21-10-2021 raising an issue of ‘No Picture’ in the TV set. The service centre without any delay immediately attended the complaint and inspected the TV vide job card /complaint no. RNP211020050353. Upon inspection it was found that TV was out of warranty and “Panel TFT of the TV needs to be replaced. The service centre shared the estimate cost of Rs. 9,172/- of the part ie, PANEL-TFT with the complainant. But the complainant refused to pay the estimated cost and started raising unreasonable demands. Due to the non-approval of the estimated cost the job card got cancelled. It is submitted in the version that TV set was brought to the service centre at a stage when the warranty period was already expired therefore the said TV set could not be covered under warranty and that is the reason that the complainant was not entitled for free of cost service. When the complainant informed that the TV set is under third party warranty, considering the complainant to be valuable customer, the service centre contacted the third party insurance company Bajaj but instead of approving the estimated cost, the insurance company refused to approve/cover the TV set. The complainant has to anyhow pay the estimated cost either by himself or through the third party insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows :-
The second opposite party is only a dealer of the electrical and electronic machines and home appliances such as washing machine, television and refrigerators of various companies manufacturing the said articles. The comprehensive warranty to the T.V was for one year from the date of purchase. The second opposite party never advised the complainant to pay Rs. 3,705/- more and to avail 3 year extended warranty in addition to the warranty provided by the first opposite party. The said amount was collected by the third opposite party and the terms and conditions with respect to the extended warranty has to be answered by the third opposite party.
The averment in the complaint that after a few weeks of purchase the television showed display complaints and the second opposite party sent technicians to the residence of the complainant and it was rectified is false. Further averment in the complaint that the same display complaint repeated and on 10-10-2021 the complainant approached second opposite party and after examining the television set it is informed that the fault is not curable is also false. The complainant did not approach the second opposite party on 10-10-2021.
It is true that a complaint through the telephone was made to the second opposite party with respect to the said T.V and the said complaint was immediately forwarded to the third opposite party who is the extended warranty provider of the said T.V for proper attention and immediate action. The second opposite party has no service centres or technicians and does not rendering any type of services to the products they are selling. Since the first and second opposite parties offered the warranty to the TV they are liable to redress the grievances of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the second opposite party.
Version of the third opposite party is as follows:
The third opposite party is not an insurance company. LG LED TV of the complainant was insured with the fourth additional opposite party and the role of the third opposite party was limited to that of a mere facilitator. As such, claims if any were to be processed and settled by the fourth opposite party.
The complainant had purchased LG LED TV with financial support from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd and had taken membership of the third opposite party through M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. The third opposite party is not providing extended warranty, however the second opposite party is providing the membership of CPP Asset Care which includes various benefits like Multi-Lingual Feature –Related Assistance Help line, internet security (lap top/PC), F-Secure SAFE Device Security etc. Along with these there is an add-on complimentary benefit of extended warranty on the product from M/s. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is submitted in the version that after having used the TV for over 1.5 years the complainant registered first complaint which was resolved on 11-01-2020 by replacing PCB at a cost of Rs. 6,018/-. The complainant registered second complaint which was resolved on 14-09-2020 by replacing panel at a cost of Rs.9,500/-. After a few months the third complaint was raised by the complainant through the second opposite party and the second opposite party was informed right at the time of registration that the complainant has to bear major part of cost of repairs. Reportedly, on inspection by the insurance company, panel of the television was found defective and estimated cost of repair was about Rs. 11,700/- which was greater than the balance sum insured. The complainant refused to make payment of the cost of repair that exceeded the remaining insured amount of Rs. 3,472/-. The complainant was showered with benefits such as Multi-Lingual Feature –Related Assistance Help line, internet security (lap top/PC), F-Secure SAFE Device Security etc. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the third opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant.
A. Zahir Hussain who is Branch service in charge of the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Binesh George who is the power of attorney holder of the second opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and counsel for the third opposite party submitted that they have no oral evidence. No documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of compliant, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
(1)Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties? (2) If so, what is the relief?
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point number 1 and 2 together.
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a LED LG 32LK526BPTA model television for his domestic use on 30-08-2018 from the second opposite party who is the dealer of the first opposite party for a total amount of Rs. 18,990/- by availing instalment facility provided by Bajaj Finance.
It is proved by Exhibit A1 GST invoice issued by the second opposite party on 30.08.2018 that the complainant had paid Rs.18,990/- to the second opposite party as consideration for the said T.V. It is also an undisputed fact that the first opposite party provided a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the said television. Exhibit A2 proves that the third opposite party has provided an extended warranty for 3 years to the said television. It is further proved by Exhibit A2 that the complainant had obtained membership of the third opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.3,705/- to the third opposite party and the period of membership was three years.
The specific case of the complainant is that after a few weeks of purchase the television showed display complaints and the second opposite party rectified the same. But again the same display complaint repeated and on 10-10-2021 the complainant approached second opposite party and after examining the television set it is informed that the fault is not curable. The demand of the complainant to replace the television under extended warranty was denied by the opposite parties.
Complaint was resisted by the third opposite party on the ground that after having used the TV for over 1.5 years the complainant registered first complaint which was resolved on 11-01-2020 by replacing PCB at a cost of Rs. 6,018/- and thereafter the second complaint which was resolved on 14-09-2020 by replacing panel at a cost of Rs. 9,500/-. After that a few months the third complaint was raised by the complainant through the second opposite party and on inspection by the insurance company, panel of the television was found defective and estimate cost of repair was about Rs. 11,700/- which was greater than the balance sum insured. The complainant refused to make payment of the cost of repair that exceeded the remaining insured amount of Rs. 3,472/-.
As discussed above the third opposite party provided an extended warranty for 3 years from the date of purchase of the said T.V. Along with the version third opposite party produced the terms and conditions of the membership and extended warranty. On going through the same we can see that the appliance is defined as a new appliance(s) purchased by the member of the third opposite party and financed from BFL. From this it is evident that the third opposite party provided extended warranty and other protection to the product financed by the Bajaj Finance Ltd.
On going through the terms and conditions of the membership of the third opposite party we cannot see any exclusion limiting the liability of the second opposite party to indemnify the member only in the case of a manufacturing defect or poor workmanship of the product. On going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is produced along with the version of the third opposite party the breakdown is defined for electrical and mechanical items the breakdown shall mean the mechanical and electrical failure of a physical object that causes it to not function in its intended manner. Thus on going through these definitions we are of the opinion that the 3rd and 4th opposite parties are liable to indemnify the complainant for the defects caused to this television which was due to manufacturing defect or poor workmanship of the product. It is further stated in the letter which was issued by the fourth opposite party to the complainant that covering period of the policy will commence on 30-08-2019 and end on 29-08-2022. Here in case on hand admittedly the opposite parties have no case that defect of the T.V was reported after 29-08-2022. Admittedly the television was purchased on 30-08-2018 and the standard warranty was expired on 31.08.2019. The extended warranty and coverage of the policy shall be applicable for 3 years from 30-08-2019. Thus as per the terms and conditions of the policy the 3 rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the insured that is the complainant herein up to 29-08-2022. Hence the 3rd and 4th opposite parties are liable to indemnify the insured as per the terms and conditions.
The opposite parties have no case that the defect of the television was not due to manufacturing defect. Admittedly the television set showed twice the complaint regarding the panel of the television and the same was replaced under the extended warranty which was availed by the complainant from the third opposite party. Admittedly, the television has been repaired on multiple occasions by the opposite parties including replacement of parts free of cost. The recurrence of the same complaint in regular intervals reveals that the defect was due to manufacturing defect.
On going through the covering letter of the policy condition we can see that the extended warranty programme supported by a group asset protection policy is issued by the third opposite party and the complainant is a beneficiary under the extended warranty group policy as a complimentary benefit of being the ‘CPP Asset Care Member’ of the third opposite party and further more it is categorically stated in the covering letter that the complainant is covered under the extended warranty group policy for a some insured of Rs. 18,990/-. On going through Exhibit A2 and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it is evident that the third and fourth opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to indemnify the insured in case of any manufacturing defects of the insured asset. Here in case on hand there is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a LED T.V for an amount of Rs.18,990/-.
A person who bought a costly television has put to much mental agony and hardship when he came to know that he will not be covered by the extended warranty which was purchased by paying Rs.3,705/-. The third and fourth opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the act of the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. On the evaluation of the available evidence on record we are of the opinion that the complainant had succeeded to prove this case with cogent evidence and complaint is allowed.
(1) We hereby direct the third and fourth opposite parties to bear the cost for curing the defect of the television under the extended warranty or insurance policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the third and fourth opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.18,990/- that is the price of the T.V to the complainant.
(2) We hereby direct the third and fourth opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the third and fourth opposite parties .
(3) We hereby direct the third and fourth opposite parties to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant.
The third and fourth opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9%interest till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of July, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - GST Invoice dated 30/08/2018 for Rs.18,990/-
issued by the 2nd opposite party
A2 - CPP Asset Care Membership details cum Sales Proforma
dated 13/09/2018 (Membership No.AC1677300)
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
