CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N.Radhakarishnan, Member
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 327/12
Tuesday, the 30th day of September, 2014
Petitioner : V. Sivaprasad,
Puthenparampil House,
Karukachal PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) M/s. L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd.
Registered Office, Plot No.51,
Udyog Nagar,
Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater India,
201 306(UP)
2) Area Manager,
L.G.Electronic India Pvt.Ltd,
1st Floor, Fortune Arcade 34/565B
NH Bypass, Padvivattom,
Edappally, Cohin-24.
(Adv. Biju Hariharan &
Nithin Sunny Alex)
ORDER
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
The complainant filed the complaint on 30/10/12, in brief as follows:
The complainant herein purchased a 21’ inch Flat Colour TV having serial No.707 DRVL 006319, from an authorized dealer M/s. TV Land Chingavanam on 3/11/2007, which was manufactured by M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd. The manufacturer gave a warranty which was valid for 12 months. The warranty extended till 2/11/2009 by paying Rs. 450/- on 10/9/2008. The complainant entered into a separate contract for post warranty optioned service for 4 years too ie from 2/11/2009 to 1/11/2013 by paying Rs.1765/-. On 12/9/12, the complainant lodged a complaint about the non-functioning of the TV to the customer care service. They gave an assurance that, the defects would be rectified within 72 hours. But, no steps were taken by the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, the complainant sent a registered notice to the 1st opposite party on 20/9/12. But no action was taken by the opposite parties till time. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties filed version on 24/5/13 in short as follows:
The opposite parties admitted that, the complainant had attained extended warranty by annual maintenance contract provided by the opposite parties. The opposite parties contented that no complaint was registered over the phone of the opposite parties related to the defects of the TV. No complaint was registered on 12/9/12. The opposite parties only came to know the complaint of the TV, when the complainant had issued notice to them. The opposite parties averred that when the service officials of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant to rectify the defect, the complainant did not allow them to inspect the TV, so the defect could not be corrected. According to the opposite parties, the performance of the product will depend upon the manner and circumstances in which the product is used. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the TV or for refunding the amount. Therefore, the opposite parties pray for dismissing the complaint.
Based on the pleadings and contentions of both the parties, the point for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
As to reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the chief and proof affidavit of the complainant and the opposite parties and Ext.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant.
The opposite parties filed version and chief and proof affidavit. The chief and proof affidavit submitted, in which they had reiterated the arguments put forwarded in the version. But, they failed to appear before the Fora for a detailed hearing. The case was posted for hearing on 18-9-12 and finally on 22-9-14. On 22-9-14, the counsel of the complainant was present and the opposite parties’ counsel was absent. Heard the complainant on that day.
Point No.1
Here, the complainant purchased an LG 21’ Flat TV, manufactured by M/s LG Electronis India Pvt Ltd, from the dealer M/s. TV Land Chingavanam on 3/11/2007. The warranty given was valid for only 12 months. The complainant entered into a contract under “Happy Living Plan” for post warranty for the term of 4 years. From Ext.A1 document, it can be seen that an amount of Rs.1765/- was received from the complainant and the warranty extended upto 1/11/2013.The complainant alleged that even though, the complainant hadmade complaints to the customer care service about the defects of the TV set on 12/9/12, the opposite parties were failed to cure the defects in time. Therefore, he sent a notice to the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties averred that, no complaint was registered with them related to the TV set of the complainant. When getting the notice, they came at once to the complainant’s residence, but he had not allowed to inspect the TVset.
We perused all documents on records. From Ext.A1, it can be seen that, the warranty was extended for a term of another 4 years too. In other words, the company was giving guarantee of one year and also four years post warranty service for which a small sum was made. Here, it is undoubtedly say that, the company was indulging in restrictive trade practice in as much as they were lying up the post warranty service with the sale of the TV set.
The purchaser has an option not to enter into such contract. The purchaser may decline if it so thinks fit to enter such contract.
While giving the alluring and lofty assurance to the customers special schemes, the opposite parties must be vigilant in giving them the best service.
It is the burden of the opposite parties to prove that, they had visited the residence of the complainant to rectify the defects of the TV set. They can very well send a notice to the complainant stating this. No such evidence was produced on record by the opposite parties. So, we have to trust upon the plea of the complainant.
Having considered all aspects of the case, it is a fact that, the TV set is to be repaired by the opposite parties. No undertaking was made by the opposite parties to rectify the defects during the course of litigation. However, the defects are to be rectified immediately.
The opposite parties cannot deny the complainant who opt out “AMC’ obviously, it is the duty of the opposite parties to give service to the complainant who entered into a contract with the opposite parties.
It is to say that, the opposite parties were negligent in not giving service to the complainant.
Point No.2
Considering the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, we think that an Order to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) is enough to abate the mental agony of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly.
The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the TV set of the complainant with immediate effect or replace a brand new TV set, same model.
To meet the ends of justice, the opposite parties shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the reason stated above.
It is also directed that, the opposite parties shall pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant by way of costs of litigation.
Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry @12% per annum till payment.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September,2014.
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner.
Ext.A1-photocopy of warranty extended certificate
Ext.A2-photocopy of notice dtd 20-9-12
Ext.A3-photocopy of AD card
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
