BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.1585/2013

DATED THIS THE 6^th MARCH 2014

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                Harsha.R. S/o. M.Rajanna,

                                                No.27, “Usha Harsha Nilaya,

                                                1^st D- Main Road,

                                                B.K.Nagar, Yeshawantapura,

                                                Bangalore-22                                              

V/s

Opposite parties: -                 

1.   LG Electronics Service Centre,

No.93, TKN Mansion, Opposite to

KSRTC central office, KH Double

Road, Shanthinagara, Bangalore

2.   LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd,

Plot no.51, Udyog Vihar,

Surajpur Kasna Road, Surajpur,

Greater Noida-06

                                                ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops no.1 and 2, praying to pass an order, directing the Ops no.1 and 2 to refund Rs.39,900.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant had registered a complaint on 29-4-2013 with LG Customer care quoting their LG 32inch LCD TV had fallen down from TV stand in midnight at around 2.30 a.m. and damaged the LCD panel of the TV. This incident has occurred due to the inability of the TV stand which does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight. The way the TV has fallen down and the point where the TV stand has broken clearly shows that the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight. The point where the TV exactly connects to the TV stand is not a complete solid one or a metallic one but it is just a hard plastic material which connects with the help of four screws to the TV stand and this is where the exact weak point exists which has made the TV fallen down. With respect to the above complaint no.RNA130430063868, the LG executives by name Arun and Daniel visited their house and took the snaps of their damaged TV with the help of their mobile and digital camera. Finally the solution given from LG was the TV had damaged due to external source. The complainant completely denies and totally disagrees with the solution given from LG as any normal person who has seen the incident can clearly judge that the TV stand was not all strong enough to hold the TV weight. Many follow ups and reminders have been done via email but there is no proper response from LG and also the complainant has contacted and personally spoken to the branch service manager Tummala Kishore through phone but again there is no proper response from him as well and again the escapes by telling the same reason that TV has been damaged due to the external source. A reminder cum legal notice was also sent to LG head office on 30-7-2013 but again they did not get any response for the same. The complainant can prove that the TV has fallen on its own with the help of the photos, video and can also bring the asset to the consumer forum for a better clarification and he can guarantee that there was no external force applied on the TV. By seeing the real scenario of the broken TV stand and the fact any layman can clearly analyze about this incident saying the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight and hence TV had to have a severe damage, if the mistake had honestly happened from the complainant end the complainant would have sincerely contacted LG for replacing the panel and the respective panel and service charges would have been paid without any further discussions. Since, the LG TV stand was not manufactured in the right way using proper material from LG they have lost their LCD TV which has brought a great loss for them and the same loss should be incurred from LG Company. Initially they requested LG Company to replace their damaged TV with a new LG TV in his email and legal notice but there was no response from LG at all. For the last four months we have not seen the TV which was really boring for them especially for the parents of complainant. The complainant has decided not to use any LG products any more and so the complainant need a refund of LCD TV amount of Rs.35,900=00 and also compensation of Rs.4,000=00. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

   3. After service of the notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed version, contending interalia as under:

The complaint of complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) (i) of CP Act. The averments of the complaint go to show that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP, and there was no any fault in the TV till it was fallen down at about 2.30 a.m. as alleged by the complainant from the date of purchase, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Ops are not personally liable for the reason for fallen down of the TV to any extent, since there is no manufacturing defect in the said TV and more so the TV was fallen down after two and half years from the date of its purchase. It is true that, the complainant had registered a complaint on 29-4-2013 with LG customer care stating that his TV was fallen down from TV stand. The averments of complaint that this incident was occurred due to the inability of the TV stand which does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight and the point where the TV broken clearly shows that, the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight are denied as false, baseless and unfounded. The further averments that, the point where the TV exactly connects to the TV stand is not a complete solid one or a metallic one but it is just a just plastic material which connects with the help of four screws to the TV stand are denied as false and baseless and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The said TV was not fallen as alleged till two and half years from the date of purchase, if there was any defect in the said TV stand it could have fallen down at the earliest point of time from the date of its purchase. But in the present case the said TV was fallen down as alleged by the complainant is not possible one and it may be an external sources i.e. reckless use of the TV stand by the complainant or his family members at the time of cleaning the said TV and its stand and due to the said it might be fallen down from the TV stand. It is true that many follow ups and reminders have been done via email but there is no proper response from LG is denied as false. The other averments that the complainant has contacted and personally spoken to the branch service manager via phone is true but there is no proper response from him as well and again he escaped by telling the same reason that TV has been damaged due to the external source is denied as false. The Ops have clearly instructed the complainant and his family member in respect of the allegations made against them as stated in the complaint. The further averments of the complaint that for the last four months they have not seen the TV which was really boring for them especially for his parents are denied as false. The Ops have requested the complainant to pay the charges for the replacement of the panel of the TV, but the complainant was not ready to pay the said charges, so the OP have not rectified the said complaint complained by the complainant. The complainant should pay the charges for the repair of the TV as the said TV is out of warranty period. Hence the grouse of the complainant is wholly unfounded and baseless, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and there is no cause of action, so the complaint of complainant be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                  Whether the complainant proves that, the Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in not replacing the LCD TV as prayed in the complaint?

2.                  If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                  What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

point no.1, the complainant is not entitled 

to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced copy of tax invoice of LCD TV, email correspondences between the complainant and Ops and legal notice copy. On the other hand, one T.Jaya Kishore, Branch Manager working in Ops has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced no documents. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.

7. One Harsha.R, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he had registered a complaint on 29-4-2013 with LG Customer care quoting their LG 32 inch LCD TV had fallen down from TV stand in the midnight at around 2.30 a.m. and damaged the LCD panel of the TV. This incident has occurred due to the inability of the TV stand which does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight. The TV has fallen down and the point where the TV stand has broken clearly shows that the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight. The point where the TV connects to the TV stand is not a complete solid one or a metallic one but it is just a hard plastic material which connects with the help of four screws to the TV stand and this is where the exact weak point exists which has made the TV fallen down. With respect to the above complaint no.RNA130430063868, the LG executives by name Arun and Daniel visited their house and took the snaps of their damaged TV with the help of their mobile and digital camera. Finally the solution given from LG was the TV had damaged due to external source. He completely denies and totally disagrees with the solution given from LG as any normal person who has seen the incident can clearly judge that the TV stand was not all strong enough to hold the TV weight. Many follow ups and reminders have been done via email but there is no proper response from LG and he has contacted and personally spoken to the branch service manager Tummala Kishore through phone but there is no proper response and again he escapes by telling the same reason that TV has been damaged due to the external source. A reminder cum legal notice was also sent to LG head office on 30-7-2013 but no response. He can prove that the TV has fallen on its own with the help of the photos, video and can also bring the asset to the consumer forum for a better clarification and he can guarantee that there was no external force applied on the TV. By seeing the real scenario of the broken TV stand and the fact any layman can clearly analyze about this incident saying the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight and so TV has been severally damaged, if the mistake had honestly happened from his end, they would have sincerely contacted LG for replacing the panel and the respective panel and service charges would have been paid without any further discussions. Since, the LG TV stand was not manufactured in the right way using proper material from LG they have lost their LCD TV which has brought a great loss for them and the said loss should be incurred from LG Company. Initially they requested LG Company to replace their damaged TV with a new LG TV in his email and legal notice but there was no response from them and for the last four months they have not seen the TV which was really boring for them especially for his parents. He has decided not to use any LG products any more and so he need a refund of LCD TV amount of Rs.35,900=00 and compensation, so the complaint be allowed and grant relief as prayed for.

8. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant. Document no.1 of the complainant is the copy of tax invoice issued by the Sai Galaxy dated 4-11-2010 in the name of M.Rajanna who being the farther of complainant for having purchased LCD TV for Rs.35,900=00. The second document of the complainant is the copy of email letter addressed to the Muralidharan and Team stating that, during the first visit to their house a executive by name Arun took the photos with his mobile and during second visit to their house a executive by name Daniel took second set of photos, video  from digital camera, still he would like to mention the same reason that the panel is chargeable. He does not want to spend his money for the mistake which is not committed from his end. LG Company is responsible for this damage as it has not given a strong TV stand which can hold the TV weight, so all the damaged expenses should be incurred from the LG Company. The email letter of Muralidharan addressed to the complainant is found in the email correspondences of the complainant wherein it is stated that, they have explained to complainant this TV panel is broken physically and panel will be on chargeable. Email letter of complainant dated 4-6-2013 is found wherein it is stated that, the damaged TV has to be replaced immediately with a new TV without delaying further or else please refund the TV amount. Email letter of complainant dated 28-5-2013 disclosed that, the executives had visited their house and given him a report saying that the incident has occurred due to the influence of external source. By seeing the real scenario and fact any layman can clearly analyze the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the TV weight and so TV had to have a severe damage, so he requested the employee of OP to replace a new TV without delaying further or else refund the amount of TV. Last email letter of complainant dated 28-5-2013 goes to show that, the complainant has stated in his email that, LCD TV stand was not manufactured in the proper way using right material from LG they have lost their LCD TV which has made a great loss to them, so requested to replace damaged TV with a new TV.

9. By making careful analysis of material evidence of the complainant as mentioned supra, it is made manifest that, except stating orally by complainant that, the LG TV stand was not manufactured in the proper way and TV stand supplied to them is not strong enough to hold the TV weight, no convincing documentary evidence is produced by the complainant. On the other hand, the Ops have contended both in the version and evidence of employee of Ops that, the damaged TV stand and TV was due to external sources and not due to manufacturing defect. In order to prove the manufacturing defect in the TV stand, the complainant ought to have taken appointment of technical person as a court commissioner by filing necessary application and obtained the report of commissioner, but unfortunately, no such efforts were made by the complainant to appoint a technical person as a court commissioner. In the absence of producing any clear and tangible documentary evidence it is superfluous to reiterate on the sworn testimony of the complainant that, the TV stand supplied to the complainant by Ops was having manufacturing defect and that stand was fallen on the particular date on its own accord. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant’s father has purchased a LCD TV on 4-11-2010 as per the copy of tax invoice produced and in the tax invoice the period of warranty is not mentioned, so also the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show the period of warranty. Usually all the electronics goods including LCD TV, the period of warranty will be one year from the date of purchase. As per the recital of the complaint, the LCD TV was fallen on 29-4-2013 i.e. after 2 ½ years of purchase and by that time the warranty given to LCD TV was over. The oral evidence of complainant that, on 29-4-2013 during the midnight, the TV stand was fallen on its own and due to that, the TV was damaged and there is manufacturing defect in the TV stand is not corroborated by believable documentary evidence.

10. At this stage, it is relevant to have a cursory glance at the material evidence of Ops. One T.Jaya Kishore, Branch manager working in the Ops has stated in his affidavit that, the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the CP Act. The Ops are not liable for damage of TV due to fallen, since there is no manufacturing defect in the said TV, and TV was fallen down after 2 ½ years from the date of purchase. The Ops denies the TV stand does not have the capacity to hold the weight of the TV. The said TV was fallen down as alleged by the complainant is not possible one and it may be external sources i.e. reckless use of the TV stand by the complainant or his family members at the time of cleaning the TV and its stand, since the said TV was not coming under warranty as per warranty card provided to TV users, the complainant has to bear the charges for the replacement of the panel of the TV, but the complainant was not ready to pay the said charge, the complainant should pay the charges for the repair of the TV as the said TV is out of warranty. The complainant is not entitled to any relief, so the complaint be dismissed with costs.

11. Taking the oral and documentary evidence of complainant and compare the same with the material evidence of OPs, it is vivid and clear that, the LCD TV was purchased by the father of complainant on 4-11-2010 and incident in question i.e. fallen of TV stand alongwith TV was taken place on 29-4-2013 i.e. after 2 ½ years of purchase of TV and at that time, the warranty given to the TV was expired. The complainant has not chosen to appoint of any technical person as a court commissioner to verify whether the TV stand supplied to complainant was having manufacturing defect or not and without report of the court commissioner, it is unsafe and unhazardous to hold on the oral testimony of the complainant that, the TV stand given to the complainant by OP was having manufacturing defect, if the fall of TV stand on its own accord had taken place well within the warranty period, the forum could have directed the OP either to replace the LCD TV with a new LCD TV in place of old LCD TV or to pay the value of LCD TV, since the alleged incident dated 29-4-2013 has taken place after expiry of warranty period i.e. after 2 ½ years of purchase of TV, the Ops cannot have right either to replace the TV or to pay the value of the TV as prayed in the complaint.

12. So looking at the case of complainant on the back ground of material evidence of both parties, we are of the view that, the material evidence of Ops placed before the forum is more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of complainant, and accordingly we hold that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove with tangible material evidence that, the Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in not replacing the TV as prayed in the complaint. Due to paucity of material evidence, we answer this point in a negative.            

          13. In view of the negative findings on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 6^th day of March 2014).

MEMBER                         PRESIDENT