BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of October, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.159/2009

Between

Complainant : C.V. Ravi,

Remya Bhavan,

Nedumkandam P.O,

Asarikandam,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager, ACO Cochin,

Kalyani Sharp India Limited,

Ward No.XII, Door No.1492B,B1,B2,

First Floor, Amal Complex,

C.P Ummer Road,

Ernakulam – 682 035.

2. M/s.Kochupurackal Agencies,

Kattappana P.O,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

The complainant purchased a Sharp 21' A-K 91 Model Television for a consideration of Rs.17,700/- from the shop of the 2^nd opposite party. It was having 7 years warranty. On 10.05.2009 the TV became functionless and the fact was intimated to the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party sent a technician to the complainant's house. After examination of the TV, it was found that the TV got damaged due to lightning and he informed that there was no warranty due to lightning. So he demanded Rs.3,900/- as repairing charges. But the complainant refused to pay the amount. He paid Rs.600/- as additional amount for seven years warranty. The opposite party did not react properly and the TV continued to be functionless. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for a direction for repair the TV or delivery of a new television.
 

2. In the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, Manager(Service), Sharp India Limited, it is admitted that the TV in question was purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party's shop. The Ist opposite party was offering 6 years free service(not warranty) for certain models of colour TV purchased by customers from 1.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 and the opposite party had issued 6 years free service card with the terms and conditions printed on it. As per the terms and conditions of 6 years free service, the Ist opposite party is not liable for any damage to the TV set on account of lightning, high voltage, etc. The service agent inspected the TV on 21.05.2009. He has mentioned that the TV has got damaged due to lightning. So there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ist opposite party.

3. The 2^nd opposite party is exparte at the time of evidence and written version has been filed. In the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, it is admitted that the TV in question was purchased by the complainant from his shop on 19.08.2002 and the complainant has paid Rs.600/- for additional 6 years free service. The opposite party had issued 6 year free service card with the terms and conditions printed on it. During May, 2009 the complainant informed to the shop that the TV is not working properly. On 21.05.2009, the service agent went to the complainant's house and on examination of the TV, it was found that the main board was totally defective due to lightning. He informed the complainant that there was no warranty due to lightning. An amount of Rs.3,900/- is needed for repairing the TV. So there was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite party.
 

6. The POINT :- It is admitted that the TV in question was purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party and it was covered by 7 years warranty. The complainant has produced Ext.P1 which is a bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party on 19.08.2002. In that bill the opposite party assured seven years warranty. The complainant as PW1 would swear that he paid additional amount of Rs.600/- for additional six years warranty. The dispute is whether the additional warranty card was issued or whether it was noted in Ext.P1 cash bill only. Anyhow this dispute does not assume much importance in the particular circumstances of the case, because 7 years warranty is admitted and the service in question was demanded within the warranty period. Ext.P2 is the copy of the notice issued by the complainant stating that the TV is not working. Ext.P3 is the copy of the service report that the damage had happened due to lightning. Ext.P4 is the users manual. Ext.P5 is the reply letter from the Ist opposite party. In the cross examination, PW1 had admitted that the technician from the 2^nd opposite party came and checked the TV, but he demanded Rs.3,900/- for changing the main board. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. He admitted that the complainant purchased the TV from the 2^nd opposite party, offering 6 years free service for certain models of colour TV. On 21.05.2009, the service agent inspected the TV and mentioned that the TV has got damaged due to lightning. As per the terms and conditions of 6 years free service they are not liable for any damages to the TV set on account of lightning, high voltage etc. In the cross examination, DW1 has admitted that he could not check the TV directly, only through service agent. In cross examination he has not adduced any evidence that the non-functioning of the TV has due to lightning. The claim for replacement of the TV as such is not sustainable. Under the general law regarding sale of goods, replacement is possible only if the goods in question suffer from any manufacturing defect. In this particular case manufacturing defect of any sort is not proved and in that event replacement of the damaged part alone is possible and in this case the opposite parties have performed that requirement under the warranty. In Ext.P1 bill shows only “seven years warranty”, no other terms and conditions printed. So there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are bound to satisfy the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, the complainant is entitled to the cost of this petition, which we would limit to Rs.1,000/-.

In the result, the petition allowed. The Ist and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to repair the TV within one month. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - V.Ravi

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - S.Narayana Sarma

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Proforma Invoice dated 19.08.2002 for Rs.17,700/-

Ext.P2 - True copy of complainant's letter dated 17.05.2009 addressed to the

Ist opposite party

Ext.P3 - Carbon copy of Service Report dated 21.05.2009 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ext.P4 - Operation Manual of SHARP Model 21A-K91 colour television with Warranty Card

Ext.P5(a) - Ist opposite party's reply letter dated 19.05.2009

Ext.P5(b) - Ist opposite party's reply letter dated 29.05.2009

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil