DATE OF FILING :02/02/17
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of June 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 24/17
Between
Complainant : Manoj Kurian,
Thanniyil House,
Pazhayarikandam P.O.,
Mailappuzha.
And
Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,
Hirange Home Appliances,
Kanjikuzhy P.O., Idukki.
2 . Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
A- 25 Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi – 110 044.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
Complainant purchased an LED TV from the first opposite party shop, manufactured by the second opposite party, by paying an amount of Rs.13,500/- on 31/07/16. This TV covers one year warranty. While so within 2 months of its purchase it showed display complaint as a black spot on the display of the screen. Due to the black spot, which is permanently shown in the screen, affected the functioning of the TV. For rectifying this defect the complainant entrusted the TV set to the first opposite party on 04/12/16. At that time opposite party stated that they will return the TV after curing the defect within one week. Thereafter the complainant contacted the first opposite party so many times, but the first opposite party was not turned up. Hence the complainant caused to issue a legal notice to the first opposite party demanding to cure the defect of the TV or else to replace to a new one on 25/01/17. At that time the first opposite party informed him that the complainant had to pay much more amount for curing the defects of the TV.
(Cont....2)
-2-
Complainant further averred that the defect caused to the TV in its warranty period, and the opposite parties are bound to cure the defect free of cost. Demanding money for curing the defect is gross deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complainant filed this petition for directing the opposite parties to cure the defect of the TV or else return the purchase price of the TV along with cost and compensation.
Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version the first opposite party contented that, on getting the complaint, the first opposite party reported the complainant to the service centre and the service technician inspected the TV and found that the damage of the TV caused due to the contact with some hard objects and due to that the panel was broken. On enquiry the complainant admitted the fact. Since the damage was caused by careless handling it could not be covered under warranty condition.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and warranty card of the LED TV and its Retail Invoice produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. Opposite parties neither adduced any evidence nor cross examined the witness.
Heard in detail.
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 Points:- We have heard the counsel for both the parties and gone through the exhibits. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the TV from the first opposite party dealer and TV was defective within 2 months of its purchase. The defect of the TV was duly intimated to the first opposite party immediately and the first opposite party demanded the price of the panel. Opposite parties contented that there is no wilful delay or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in repairing the TV in question.
(Cont....3)
-3-
The second opposite party in their written version contented that, if some defect are noticed, that will not automatically come within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be possibility for that defect due to mishandling, and the Consumer Protection Act contemplates, expert opinion when the defect is not visible. When the complainant came to the service centre, there was no manufacturing defect in the said LED TV. From the service centre, the complainant was informed that, the defect caused to the TV is a physical damage and which is not included in the terms and conditions of the warranty. Suppressing the material facts, complainant approached this Forum for getting some undue benefits from the opposite parties. Opposite parties further contented that this opposite party or their agent, dealers, service centre has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice to the complainant, and is not responsible or liable to the rectification of the TV due to the reason that the damage to the TV will not cover warranty, since it is a physical damage. Through the written version opposite parties further contented that due to the contact of a hard object, the panel of the TV is damaged and the opposite party further contented that this fact was admitted by the complainant himself on their enquiry. At the same time opposite parties has not took any effort to produce any written opinion from their expert to substantiating their version. More over opposite parties has miserably failed to cross examine the complainant when he was examined as PW1, to elucidate the matter of damage which is happened to the LED TV in question. Even though opposite parties narrated the cause of damage to the TV, they failed to adduce any evidence to convince the Forum that, the defect caused to the TV is due to mishandling or lack of proper care. Without sufficient materials to support defence version, the Forum cannot accept this contention.
Hence on the basis of above discussion, Forum is of a considered view that opposite parties failed to prove their version with clear and cogent evidence and therefore, the defect caused to the TV can be considered as a manufacturing defect and which happened within its warranty period and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to cure the defect of the TV at free of cost.
Under the above circumstances the complaint allowed. The first opposite party is direct to cure the defect of the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant and extent its warranty for a further period of 6 months or else
(Cont....4)
-4-
opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to repay an amount of Rs.13,500/- jointly to the complainant as the purchase price of the TV. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directs to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant, jointly within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the purchase price shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till the realization
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Manoj Kurian
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Warranty card of the LED TV
Ext.P2 - Retail Invoice produced by the complainant
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
