Kerala

Malappuram

CC/106/2019

ABDUL RAHEEM K - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
MALAPPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/106/2019
( Date of Filing : 11 Mar 2019 )
 
1. ABDUL RAHEEM K
KAITHAKATH HOUSE AR NAGAR PO AZAD NAGAR
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MANAGER
KALPAKA ELECTRONICS AND HOME BAZAR MAIN ROAD KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM
2. MANAGER
LG SERVICE CENTRE OPPOSITE WAGON TRAGEDY AUDITORIUM TIRUR
3. MANAGER
LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD A WING 3RD FLOOR D3 DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET NEW DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. MOHAMED ISMAYIL CV MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Jun 2022
Final Order / Judgement

By Smt.PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

1. Case of the complainant

        On 4/09/2016 , complainant purchased LG LED TV worth Rs. 38,900/-  from  opposite party No.1 shop and it delivered to complainant’s house on the same day.  At the time of purchasing the TV opposite party No.1 assured one year warranty for the TV and  informed the complainant that , complainant can extent the warranty by enter into  annual maintenance contract after  giving  Rs. 12,744/- after one year.  By believing the words of opposite party No.1, complainant approached opposite party No.2 for extending the warranty of television and other electronic equipments manufactured by opposite party No.3.  On 26/04/2018 complainant entered into a agreement  with opposite party No.3 for annual maintenance contract .In that contract includes two Air conditioners , one washing machine , One microwave oven  and one LED TV   and also included  the TV above mentioned manufactured by opposite party No.3 .

2.       One day when complainant switch on the TV, some vertical lines seen on the right side of the television.  At that time the rest of the screen was functioning normally, but on the very next day the whole   screen was filled with similar vertical lines closely packed causing interruption to see the pictures.  Due to this vertical lines complainant was not in a position to use  the TV more.

3.    Then he approached opposite party No.2 and demanded them to repair the defective TV, but opposite party No.2 said that they will repair only after paying  the repair charges.  Then complainant said that he had already extend the warranty of the electronic items including this TV by paying extra money, but  opposite party No.2  was not ready to repair the TV without payment.  Thereafter complainant had registered a complaint at the office of the opposite party No.2, but opposite party did not send a service engineer to rectify the defects.  Then  complainant send a lawyer notice to opposite parties , but they neither  replied  the notice  received nor  rectify  the defects  caused to the TV.   There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Due to the negligent act of opposite parties complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony  and loss of professional practice.  There is an extended warranty for the above TV for  the period of 27/4/2018 to  26/4/2021.  Hence this complaint.

4.      The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost and direction may be given to the opposite parties to repair the defective TV without further defects because TV had manufacturing defects.

5.     On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they appeared before this commission   with their counsels and filed version.

6.     In their version opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations and averments mentioned in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted.   They admitted that complainant had purchased a TV manufactured by opposite party No.3 and they explained to complainant about the offers guarantee, warranty and price offered by opposite party No.3.  They again stated that they had no knowledge about the defects caused to complainant’s TV and complainant did not inform the defects to them.  If complainant’s TV had any complaint, it is the duty of other opposite parties to rectify the defects.  It is not the duty of opposite party No.1 to repair the TV.  They are not liable to compensate the complainant because they are only selling the product through their shops. They are not liable to compensate the complainant if the defect caused was a manufacturing defects.

7.           In their  version  opposite party No.2 and 3  said  that  the  complaint  filed by

complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party No.2 and 3 admitted that complainant purchased LG TV from the first opposite party  and  it delivered on 04/09/2016 and they also admitted that complainant was provided with extended  annual  maintenance contract (AMC) for three years which expires  only on  26/04/2021.  They again admitted that complainant was registered a complaint on 18/6/2018 with regard to the working of the TV with them.  They  immediately attended the service call  and on inspection  it was found that  the TV panel was broken.  As breaking of TV panel is a physical damage and not a manufacturing defects and the same will not cover under the AMC.    Therefore the technician of opposite party No.2 and 3 gave an approximate estimate of Rs. 23,000/- for repairing the TV.  But the complainant is not ready to pay the same, instead approached this Hon’ble Commission with this experimental litigation.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

8.    In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the brochure and original annual maintenance contract between complainant and opposite party No.3 dated 26/04/2018, Ext.A2 is the original tax invoice issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 4/09/2016, Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice and postal receipts. Thereafter opposite party No.1 to 3 filed affidavits, but no documents produced.  On  10/03/2020 complainant filed an IA 146/2020 to appoint an expert  to inspect the TV and  Mr. Jamal kutty  was appointed as the Expert commissioner to inspect the TV.   The commission report submitted by Expert is marked as Ext. C1.   He inspected the above TV on 15/08/2020 by giving prior notice to complainant and opposite parties through registered post.  He is submitted that the postal receipt also produced along with his report. Complainant was present at the time of inspection, but opposite party was not present.  In his report, he said that he had physically inspected the above TV and on the right side of the TV, he found a crack in Zig zag level on the inner layer of the screen and this crack is visible when the TV is working.  He again said that, he cannot found any kind of physical damage and scratch on the outside body of the above TV. When he operated the TV, then the crack is visible immediately when the television set is on.  Moreover he noticed that there is an abnormal heat is generated on the right bottom side of the above said television set.  Then   he said that he opened the TV set to examine the defects and he observed that the abnormal heat generation is on the  right bottom side of the TV.  As per his view,  the crack may be caused due to  manufacturing defects and he also submitted that the crack on the screen of the television may be  caused  due to  power supply over load/ back light LED  driver  overload due to  internal short circuit of the above  television set.   

9.    Perused the complaint, versions, affidavits and documents, the following points arise for consideration:-

  1. Whether the TV had any manufacturing defects?
  2. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
  3. Reliefs and cost.

10. Point No:1 &2

       Case of the complainant is that on 4/09/2016, he had purchased LG LED TV worth Rs. 38,900/- from the shop of opposite party No.1 and they  delivered  the TV to his house on the same day.  At the time of purchasing the TV opposite party No.1 assured one year warranty for that TV.    On 26/04/2018 complainant entered into a contract with opposite party No.3 regarding annual maintenance contract.

11.       One day when complainant switch on the TV, some vertical lines  seen  on the right side of the television.  Due to this vertical lines complainant was not in a position to use the TV more.

12.   Then he approached opposite party No.2 and demanded them to repair the  defective TV , but opposite party No.2 said that they will repair only after paying  the repair charges.  Then complainant said that  he had already extend the warranty of the electronic items including this TV by paying extra money, but  opposite party No.2  was not ready to repair the TV without  payment.  Thereafter complainant had registered a complaint at the office of the opposite party No.2,  but opposite party did not send a service engineer to rectify the defects.     There is clear deficiency of service and the unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. 

13      In the version and affidavit opposite party No.1 said that complainant had not pointed out any allegation against them. They again stated that  they had only  sold  the TV to complainant.  Thereafter  complainant did not contact  them  to rectify  the defects caused to the TV and  they had no knowledge about the defects caused to complainant’s TV. Opposite party No.1 again stated that they are unaware about the annual maintenance contract between complainant and other opposite parties.  More over they are only an agent between complainant and other opposite parties. 

14.      In this matter opposite party No.2 and 3 admitted that complainant purchased LG TV from first opposite party and delivered on 4/09/2016.  They also admitted that the complainant was provided with extended annual maintenance contract (AMC) for three years  which expires only on  26/04/2021.  They again admitted that complainant was registered a complaint on 18/06/2018 with regard to the working of the TV with  them.   Then they immediately attended the service call and on inspection it was found that  the TV panel was broken. The breaking of TV panel is a  physical damage  and not a manufacturing defect.  Hence  the same will not cover  under the AMC. 

15.      From the arguments put by complainant and opposite parties it is clear that there is some defects caused to the TV which complainant purchased.  On 26/09/2020, the Expert commissioner filed  his Commission report after inspecting the TV.  In his report he stated that on physical inspection of the  TV  , he found a crack  in zigzag level on the inner layer of the screen at the right side   and the  crack is visible when the television is working. He again stated that  ,he cannot find any kind of  physical damage or scratch  on the outside body of  the above said television.  Thereafter he operated the TV and the crack is visible immediately when the television set is on.  He again stated that, he noticed an abnormal  heat is generated on the right  bottom side of the above television set.

16.     The Expert commissioner  again stated that when he opened the TV set to examine the defect, he observed that the abnormal  heat generation is on the  right bottom side of the above said television set.  Then he stated that  the crack  may caused  due to  manufacturing defects and  also submit that this crack on the screen of the TV set may be  caused  by power supply overload/back light  LED driver  overload due to  internal  short circuit of the above television set.

17.      Ext. A1 document produced by complainant  is  the annual maintenance contract entered between complainant and opposite party No.2 and 3 on 26/04/2018 which starts  from 27/04/2018 to  26/04/2021.  Moreover they admitted in their version and affidavit that the extended annual maintenance contract for three years which expires only on 26/4/2021. Thereafter, they admitted that  complainant registered a complaint with regard to the working of the TV on 18/06/2018 which is within the extended  annual maintenance contract period.     More over they stated that  their service person reported that TV panel was broken.   From the above facts it is clear that the complaint filed by complainant is  true.

18.    Then the question arise before us is   that whether the defect caused to the TV is a manufacturing defect or not.  Opposite party No.2 and 3 in their version and affidavit stated that the breaking of TV panel is a physical damage and not a manufacturing defect, the same will not cover under the AMC.  But  the Commission report  filed by the Expert commissioner, who is the lecturer at Government Poly Technic  College, Tirurangadi stated that  in the right side of the  TV there is  a crack  on the inner layer  of the screen  and this crack is  visible when the television is working.  Moreover he stated that after physical inspection he cannot find any  physical damage or scratch  on the outside body of above TV and when he operated the TV the crack is visible when the TV set is on.   He again stated that the crack may be caused due to manufacturing defects and he also submitted that the crack on the screen of the TV set may be caused power supply overload /back light LED driver  overload due to  internal short circuit  of the above TV.  In the affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 and 3, they stated that   their service engineer found that the TV panel was broken.  The commissioner appointed by this commission also found that there is a crack  on  the inner layer of the screen of the TV .

19.   From the above facts we are on the opinion that it is the duty of opposite parties to prove that the inner layer of the screen of the TV is the TV panel mentioned by opposite parties  before the Commission.  They did not take any steps to appoint a qualified person in this field to prove that what is TV panel and what is inner layer of the screen.  Opposite party No.2 and 3 again stated that the power supply overload mentioned by expert commissioner could happen due to overload in the KSEB power supply.  The said possibility is not ruled out by the commissioner and it is the burden of the complainant to prove this case beyond reasonable doubt.  But we are on the opinion that it is the duty of opposite parties to prove these areas mentioned by commissioner in his report by appointing an expert in this filed.

20.      In their affidavit opposite party No.2 and 3  stated that  no notice was given to them before inspecting the TV and they did not know the date of inspection. But  commissioner clearly stated in his  report that  he inspected the TV on 15/08/2020 and gave prior notice  to all parties  through registered post  and he produced  the postal receipts along with the commission report. Commissioner again stated that at the time of his inspection complainant was present and opposite parties were not present.

21.      In  Ext.C1,   the report filed by Expert commissioner  clearly stated that , he did not find  any kind of physical damage or scratch on the outside body of the TV.  But the crack is visible when the television is working and he also stated that abnormal heat is generated on the right bottom side of the above TV and  the crack is also  noticed  in the right side of the TV.  Moreover he stated that  the crack may caused due to  manufacturing defects and he again stated that  he is unable to inspect the above TV set  to trouble shoot  in circuit/ chip level to find out   the exact reason and  solution of the problem. Hence we are on the opinion that the TV had manufacturing defects and it is the duty of  opposite party No.2 and 3  to rectify the defects free of cost because complainant and the opposite party No.2 and 3  had entered into an extended annual maintenance contract for three years, which starts from 27/04/2018 and which ends to 26/4/2021. Opposite party No.2 and 3 admitted that the complaint was registered on 18/06/2018 which is within the period of contract  between complainant and opposite party No.2and 3.  Hence it is the duty of opposite parties to rectify the defects free of cost.  There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.

22.    We allow this complaint as follows:-

  1. The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.38,900/-(Rupees Thirty eight thousand  and nine hundred only) the cost of the TV to the complainant.
  2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
  3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

             If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHAMED ISMAYIL CV]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.