`IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No.70/2011 (Filed on 11.03.2011)
Between:
Mani Samuel,
Vaduthala House,
Churulikodu.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. George Thazhathethil) ….. Complainant.
And:
1. Manager,
QRS Retail Limited,
XXII/227 Alummoottil Plaza,
St. Peter’s Junction,
T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.
2. M/s. Philips Service,
Authorised Service Centre,
Weltech Electronics,
Opp. Federal Bank,
Holi Angel’s Road,
Central, Adoor.
3. Manager,
M/s. Philips Electronics,
India Limited, Krishna Kripa,
Layam Road,
Cochin – 680 001.
(ByAdv. Alexander Mathew for O.P.No.3) ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following: Complainant’s son purchased a colour T.V from the 1st opposite party paying ` 8,200 on 25.01.2010. Complainant and his wife were the beneficiaries of the said T.V. While using the T.V, without any reason it became faulty on 04.05.2010. The defects noticed by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. As per the direction of 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party’s representatives came and taken it. They repaired and returned on 06.05.2010 and charged ` 2,850. After three months, the T.V again became faulty and representatives of 2nd opposite party came and taken it on 12.08.2010. They informed that it can be repaired only by resetting the parts. They demanded ` 1,800 for repairing the T.V. Complainant asked them not to repair the T.V and the same was brought to home.
3. According to complainant, it is illegal on the part of 2nd opposite party to realize ` 2,850 when the warranty is in force. Again T.V became faulty on 12.08.2010 onwards. It is the boundan duty of opposite parties to rectify the defect. When complainant approached 1st opposite party, they abused with bad words.
4. When the opposite parties would not resolve the matter, complainant approached the District Legal Service Authority and they directed to approach this Forum. Hence this complaint for directing the opposite parties to rectify the defect within time, and also directing them to replace a new one, and returned the charges of ` 2,850 realized during the warranty period with compensation and cost.
5. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed separate version stating that complaint is not maintainable and they are only retailers. They admitted that complainant purchased a T.V and they issued bill and warranty card. They are not service providers. They are sellers and the recognized services were provided by company through their service centres.
6. According to them on receiving the complaint, they timely informed the company and their service engineer inspected the T.V and found that Circuit Board of T.V has damaged due to lightening. As per warranty condition any part of the T.V on account of lightening is not covered. Therefore he has to pay the repairing charges. Complainant admitted it and paid the repairing charges. But complainant has not followed the directions of service engineer while using the T.V. Therefore the T.V again became faulty. When the service engineer came in 2nd time complainant forcibly sent him. Thereafter complainant came several times to 1st opposite party’s shop and shouted. According to them, they promptly informed the complainant’s grievance to company and always try to resolve the matter. Therefore, there is no laches or inaction on their part. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. 3rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version for opposite parties 2 and 3. But second opposite party is exparte. The main contentions in the version is that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, service centre responded immediately to the complainant’s complaint and found that the printed circuit board of the T.V got damaged because of lightening. The damage to any part of the T.V on account of lightening or thundering is not covered under the warranty terms. The same are beyond the manufacturers control and supervision. Therefore, opposite parties 2 and 3 charged the cost of PCB from the complainant.
8. According to opposite parties due to the lightening the printed circuit board got damaged again and they offered to replace the PCB at a discounted price of ` 600 purely as a goodwill gesture of company. Moreover, complainant has not used the T.V as per the directions stated in the manual. Complainant used to watch the T.V during the lightening time thereby the printed circuit board got damaged. The occurred complaint is not due to the manufacturing defect. Opposite parties promptly attended the complainant’s defect and therefore there is no scope of deficiency of service.
9. According to them, complainant has not come with clean hands. He instituted this complaint on false and baseless ground to gain profit by defaming them. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
10. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
11. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
12. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice of ` 8,200 issued by 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the receipt of ` 2,850 dated 06.05.2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
13. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 3rd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with one document. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the copy of job sheet dated 05.04.2010.
14. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that the newly purchased T.V became faulty during the warranty period and opposite parties realized repairing charges and rectified it. After that again it became faulty and opposite parties further demand charges for repairing. According to complainant the realized amount and the further demand for repairing is illegal when warranty is in force.
15. Opposite parties contention is that complainant’s PCB of T.V got damaged due to lightening which is not covered under the warranty terms. Therefore they charged the cost of PCB. Moreover complainant used the T.V without complying the manual and there by got damaged again due to lightening. Therefore as per warranty condition they are not liable. Even then, they are ready and willing to rectify the defect with moderate rate, but complainant has not co-operated them.
16. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the period of warranty and the occurrence of damage to T.V. The only dispute is that the damage occurred due to the lightening which is not covered as per warranty. Ext.B1 shows that opposite parties rectified the defect. Ext.A1 shows that they realized ` 2,850 as repairing charges from complainant.
17. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.A2 the warranty is not valid in case of any of the following events i.e. “defect due to causes beyond control like lightening, abnormal voltage, Act of God or while in transit to purchases residence”. In Ext.B1, defect is recorded as “dead, lightening PCB Burnt”. Complainant neither challenged Ext.B1 nor adduced any expert evidence to disprove the said contention of opposite parties. Therefore, we are not inclined to find deficiency on this aspect.
18. Complainants another contention is that his T.V again became faulty even after Exts.A3 and B1. Opposite parties also admitted that the T.V again became faulty. According to them, it is due to the use of the complainant during lightening disregarding the guidelines in the user’s manual. But they failed to prove the same. It is the boundan duty of opposite parties to rectify the defect during the warranty period. Therefore, the T.V has to be rectified free of cost. Hence complaint is partly allowable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no amount is allowable as compensation and cost.
19. In the result, complaint is partly allowed; thereby the opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the T.V within 15 days from the date of production of the T.V by the complainant, and if it is not reparable, opposite parties are directed to replace the T.V or its price. In case of non-compliance of this order, complainant is allowed to realize the price of the T.V from the opposite parties with 9% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Mani Samuel
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Retail Invoice dated 25.01.2010 for ` 8,200 issued by 1st opposite
party to the complainant.
A2 : Warranty card issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant.
A3 : Cash Bill dated 06.05.2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Binu Abraham
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of job sheet dated 05.04.2010 issued by 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Mani Samuel, Vaduthala House, Churulikodu.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) Manager, QRS Retail Limited, XXII/227 Alummoottil Plaza,
St. Peter’s Junction, T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.
(3) M/s. Philips Service, Authorised Service Centre,
Weltech Electronics, Opp. Federal Bank, Holi Angel’s Road,
Central, Adoor.
(4) Manager, M/s. Philips Electronics, India Limited, Krishna
Kripa, Layam Road, Cochin – 680 001.
(5) The Stock File.
