CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.
CC.No.65/08 Saturday, the day of 30th, January, 2010.
Petitioner. Prasannakumar Chalolithara House Kulasekharamangalom P.O. Vaikom. (Adv.P.V.Krishnakumar) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd. Rep. By Managing Director 40/1270, Vasudeva building Ernakulam. 2. Manager LG Electronics India Ltd. 40/1270 Vasudeva Building Ernakulam. 3. Proprietor Aswaraya Electrical & Home Appliances, Vaikom.
O R D E R Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member. The case of the complaint is as follows. The complainant had purchased a 21'' colour TV from the 3rd opposite party on 6/9/2003 for an amount of Rs.8000/- which was manufactured by the Ist opposite party. The warranty card issued by the 3rd opposite party it was seen that ''onam special offer 2003'' Life long warranty''. The complainant purchased the TV set on the basis of the assurance given by the 34d opposite party. On 2007 may -2- itself the TV set became defective. So he approach the opposite parties. The opposite parties depute one mechanic and he inspect the TV set and it was told that picture tube became defective and it should be replaced on payment of Rs.3500/. The problem of the TV set was happened due to the manufacturing defects. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties not to repair the TV set or refund the price of it. Hence this complaint. The notice was served with the opposite parties they appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The opposite party never made any advertisement offering 'Life long warranty' for the LG colour TV. The maximum warranty period extended for the TV was for a period of 3 years above the 1 year normal guarantee. It may be true that the picture tube had some complaint in may 2007, after using the TV. For about 4 years. The warranty period of the complainants TV might have been expired and that is why the technician of these opposite parties demanded charges for replacing the picture tube. The complaint to the picture tube could have happened for several reasons which cannot be attributed as manufacturing defects. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant filed proof affidavit and document which are marked as exhibit A1. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit. The commission report is marked as exhibit C1. Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had not cured the defects of the TV set when it became defective. According to him the 3rd opposite party has issued a warranty card stating that ''special onam offer 2003'' and ''life long -3- warranty''. The opposite parties did not admitted the alleged ''life long warranty'' of the complainant TV set. According to them the complainant had used the TV set for four years and hence the normal period of warranty is 3 years which was already over because the alleged complaint was happened on may 2007. From the expert commissioners report C1 it can be seen that the picture tube of TV set was not working. More over the opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to show that the opposite parties had done anything to cure the alleged defects of the complainant's TV set. From A1 warranty card it is seen that there was a seal stating that special offer 2003. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite parties to repair the complainant's of the TV set by repairing it is a working condition free of costs or if it is not possible the opposite parties are ordered to refund the price of TV set ie. Rs.8000/- to the complainant. (2) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-
-4-
APPENDIX Documents produced by the complainant.
A1 is the warranty card. C1 is the report of the expert commissioner.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent.
Kgr/6 copies
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
