Kerala

Idukki

CC/196/2018

Hari madhusudhanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :25/10/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO.196/2018

Between

Complainant : Hari Madhusudhanan,

Kadavil House,

Adimaly,

Mannamkandam P.O.,

200^th Acre.

And

Opposite Party : 1 . L.G. Electronics India Pvt.Ltd.,

A Wing (3^rd Floor),

D-3 District Centre Docket,

New Delhi – 110 017.

(By Adv: R.Padmaraj)

2 . Gopunandhilath,

Managing Director,

Nandhilath G-Mart, Room No.XXVI-322E,

322F, Perumpillil Arcade,

4- Line Road,

Vengalloor, Thodupuzha – 685 608.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased an LED TV from the second opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party on 13/03/16 by paying Rs.22,399/-. The TV showed defect in the month of January 2018 and on intimation, the second opposite party registered a complaint as RNP 180111033213. Thereafter one technician of the first opposite party visited the complainant and he took photographs of the TV. After one month, another person inspected the TV and

(Cont....2)

-2-

said that its panel is damaged and for curing the defect, he demanded Rs.4,500/-. When the complainant intimated the matter of warranty of 2 years, the person returned from there by saying that he want to contact his higher authorities. Thereafter the opposite parties has not cared to cure the defect of the TV. Hence the complainant again registered a complaint directly to the first opposite party as directed by the second opposite party, on 11/09/2018. But till the date of filing this complaint opposite parties has not turned up to redress his grievance. Under the above circumstances complainant forced to approach this Forum and filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties and prayed for directing the opposite parties to cure the defect of the TV and to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version opposite parties contented that, the complainant ought to have produce the purchase bill and warranty card to prove those facts. The two years warranty given into the "Catch and Match" offer consists of one year comprehensive warranty available with all new TV sets and 1 year additional warranty is limited to complaints with regards to panel oblique module only.

 

Opposite parties further contented that, the service engineer of this opposite party found that the Panel Circuit Board (PCB) of the TV got complaint which is not covered under the warranty and thereafter the estimate was given for Rs.4,500/-. The complainant was not prepared to get the TV repaired on payment. Since the defective part to be replaced is out of warranty, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.

 

In their reply version the second opposite party contented that the second opposite party registered or intimated the complaint received from the complainant. There is no will full delay on their part. It is the duty of the first opposite party to carry out the repair. After sale service are done by the manufacturer and the terms and conditions of the warranty clearly stipulate the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and copy of the purchase bill

(Cont....3)

-3-

dated 13/03/16 and copy of extended warranty card of Catch and Match offer are marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 respectively. On the part of the opposite parties no evidence is adduced.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for both the parties and had gone through the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased an LED TV from the second opposite party authorised dealer of the first opposite party on 13/03/16 by paying Rs.22,399/-. On perusing Ext. P2 warranty card, it is seen that warranty is extended for one more year in addition to the normal warranty of one year to the product as "Catch and Match" offer. The warranty is provided by the manufacturer, the first opposite party. Both the opposite parties admitted the registration of the complaint of the TV within the warranty period. In their version the first opposite party contented that this additional warranty is limited to the complaint with regard to panel oblique module. It is pertinent to note that on examination, the technician of the first opposite party found that, the Panel Circuit Board of the TV in question was damaged and they estimated its repair cost Rs.4,500/-. This was questioned the complainant and thereafter, there is no response for the side of the opposite parties till they served the copy of this complaint. From the date of registration of the complaint, on 11/01/18 till the knowledge of this case, opposite parties has not cared to cure the defect of the TV under warranty. From the deposition of the complainant, it is seen that, after the receipt of the notice from this Forum, the first opposite party replaced the panel board of the TV free of cost. Till then they neglected the request of the complainant and on going through the records we came to know that providing after sale service is the responsibility of the manufacturer. In this case the failure in taking quick action for redressing the grievances of the customer after selling a product is a gross deficiency in service. Hence the act of the opposite parties in this case is a clear deficiency in their service. Hence opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant to some extent. On perusing the evidence it is

(Cont....4)

-4-

seen that the second opposite party complied their role in registering the complaint with the first opposite party. Hence no deficiency in service can be attribute against the second opposite party.

 

On the basis of above discussion the Forum is of a considered view that the allegation levelled against the first opposite party is proved by the complainant with clear and cogent evidence. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the alleged T.V is bound to extend after sale service to the customer who purchase their product from the retailers. In this case it is very clear that the first opposite party is responsible for extending their service to the complainant, and at the same time they failed to do so. It amounts to deficiency in service and the first opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant to some extent. Hence complaint partly allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation to the complainant for the delay caused in rectifying the defect of the TV in question and Rs.2000/- as the litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing with this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of July, 2019.

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Hari Madhusudhanan

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the purchase bill dated 13/03/16

Ext.P2 - Copy of extended warranty card of Catch and Match offer

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT