BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 189/2013 Filed on 16.05.2013

ORDER DATED: 16.02.2017

Complainant:

Jayakumar, S/o Gangadhara Panicker, Chamavila House, Mavarthalakonam, Medical College P.O, Ulloor Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.

                                     (Party in person)                                          

Opposite parties:

1. Manager, Pixel, T.C 14/431, Planthara, Nandavanam, Palayam, Opp: AR Police Camp, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.

(By Adv. K. Sudarsana Kumar)

2. Manager, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, SPIC Building, ‘Anexe’ No. 88, Mount Road, Chennai-600 032.

This case having been heard on 10.01.2017, the Forum on 16.02.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that he purchased LCD Panasonic 32” L32-C3D on 13.09.2011 through non-CSD store (Air Force Canteen) for Rs. 28,640/-.  On 24.09.2011 while the T.V was working, suddenly it became stuck and then the picture on monitor disappeared.  On 24.09.2011 complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for repair and 1^st opposite party noted the panel broken but 1^st opposite party wants to contact 2^nd opposite party either to repair or replacement of the T.V within one month.  Opposite parties not turned up.  Hence this complaint for repair or replacement and for compensation.   

Notice sent to opposite parties.  1^st opposite party accepted notice and filed version.  2^nd opposite party not turned up and 2^nd opposite party set exparte. 

The contention taken by 1^st opposite party is that the complaint lacks bonafides and is seen filed as a test case after a lapse of 2 years to make unlawful gain by causing abuse of process of this Forum.  The complainant had brought a Panasonic 32” LCD TV for repair at the service centre of the 1^st opposite party on 24.09.2011 complaining that the panel is broken.  This opposite party came to understand that the panel was broken due to hit by a ball by the son of the complainant while he was playing.  The complainant was also informed that the 2^nd opposite party company does not extend warranty for physical damage and that the broken panel could be replaced only on payment of its cost as the warranty is not covered for the destruction caused by the consumer himself by mishandling.  The complainant then requested the 1^st opposite party to help him by repairing the same free of cost by bringing it under the warranty as the TV was purchased only a few days back.  As such even though this opposite party did not give any assurance sent e-mail to the Branch Service in charge of South Kerala on 27.09.2011 enquiring whether the defect noted could be covered by warranty.  It was informed by the 2^nd opposite party that since the panel was broken due to the mishandling of the set by the customer the company cannot extend the warranty for the broken panel.  On receipt of the reply from the 2^nd opposite party-company the complainant was informed that no warranty could be extended and further informed that if the customer is agreeable the panel could be changed but on payment of its charges. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 & P2 marked and commission report marked as Ext. C1.  Complainant’s wife was examined as PW1 and PW1 in cross examination by 1^st opposite party deposed that “TV നാല് ദിവസം കുഴപ്പമില്ലാതെ work ചെയ്തു.  23.09.2011-ലാണ് TV service centre നല്‍കിയത്. 15.05.2013- ലാണ് case file ചെയ്തത് (Q) അതെ (A)  നിങ്ങള്‍ പരാതിയുടെ 5-ആം paragraph-ല്‍ TV service centre-ല്‍ ശരിയാക്കാ൯ നല്‍കിയ പ്പോള്‍ panel broken എന്ന കാരണം അവര്‍ പറഞ്ഞു എന്ന്‍ എഴുതി കാണുന്നല്ലോ (Q) പരാതിയില്‍ അങ്ങനെ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട് (A) TV service centre-ല്‍ കൊടുത്ത പ്പോള്‍ job card തന്നിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട് (A) Ext. P2 shown to the witness: ഇത്  service centre-ല്‍ നിന്ന്‍ തന്നതാണോ (Q) അതെ (A) ഇതില്‍ stated complaint എന്ന കോളത്തില്‍ എന്താ  എഴുതിയിരിക്കുന്നത്  (Q) Panel broken (A) Consumer-ടെ mishandling കൊണ്ട്‌ TV-യ്ക്ക് എന്തെങ്കിലും കേടു വന്നാല്‍ warranty applicable അല്ലാ എന്ന്‍ അപ്പോള്‍ പറഞ്ഞില്ലേ (Q) Panel broken ആണെങ്കില്‍ TV warranty cover ചെയ്യില്ലാ എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു (A) In Ext. C1 report the expert’s opinion on the product and concluding remarks are that “ In the above circumstances, it is assessed that the damage on the LCD panel is the cause for the defect.  It is concluded that the defect is due to some force having been applied on the surface of the panel, which could have taken place either at the transportation or handling from manufacturer’s end to dealer’s end or at the purchaser’s hand”.  1^st opposite party examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 to D4 marked.  DW1 cross examined by complainant.  1^st opposite party has taken the commission to prove the damages. 

Complainant’s case is that the TV was working perfectly for 4 days.  If the panel is broken in transit the TV will not work.  The expert also opined that “the fact that the complainant was able to watch the TV on installation and was satisfied with the performance proves that the defects so mentioned above is not an inherent one.  It could have been caused later”.  In Ext. D4 clause 6 of the terms and conditions says that warranty does not cover for any damage resulting from the mishandling of the set.  It is further submitted that when a new TV is purchased, generally the service agent will be called to install the set.  But, here, he was not called and the set was installed by the purchaser/consumer himself.  The undetached installation coupon seen in Ext. D4 is a clear proof for the same.  An attempt was belatedly made by PW1 to cover up the same in her cross examination.  If it was really installed by the 1^st opposite party it would have been stated anywhere either in the complaint, or in the proof affidavit, or in any one of his objections.  In the report that damage on the LCD panel is the cause of defect and the said defect is due to some force having been applied on the surface of the panel.  In the light of the evidence and also from the expert’s report it is evident that (a) there is no manufacturing defect as damage on the panel is the cause of defect.  (b) The panel is damaged due to the force applied on the surface of the panel. (c) The fact that the set was working properly from the date of purchase i.e; on 13.09.2011 to 24.09.2011 shows that the defect was not caused either at the producer’s end or at the dealer’s end.  Hence we are of the opinion that the defect of the TV is not inherent and it will not come under the warranty conditions.  Hence complaint is dismissed without cost.

In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of February 2017.   

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 189/2013       

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - V. Sherli

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of bill dated 13.09.2011

P2         - Copy of terms & conditions and warranty details

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Ajith Kumar. M

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of e-mail dated 27.09.2011

D2     - Copy of e-mail dated 28.09.2011

D3     - Copy of e-mail dated 01.10.2011

D4     - Certificate of warranty

  V     COURT EXHIBIT:

          C1     - Commission Report

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb