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:-
- Whether the TV had any manufacturing defects?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- 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:-
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.