By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite party to refund the purchase cost of Television along with cost and compensation.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant is a purchaser of LCD TV 26 inch on 09.06.2009 and installed it in his house on 19.06.2009. The TV set became defective on 05.07.2010. On thorough examination upon the intimation of the complainant it was realized that the panel of TV became defunct. The complainant informed the 3rd opposite party for the replacement of the TV itself. The household equipments in the house of the complainant were insured by the 2nd opposite party and they were also informed of the claim amount. The 2nd opposite party on receivel of the claim of the complainant appointed a surveyor to inspect and report. The 1st opposite party is the surveyor appointed by the 2nd opposite party to inspect and report. For inspection purpose the TV set was carried to Calicut under direction of the 1st opposite party. The TV set entrusted for repair was of mechanical defect. The defective TV caused the complainant and his family great deal of hardships. The complainant and his family lost the privilege of viewing visual media. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in the supply of the defective TV. There may be an Order directing the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs.24,000/- the price of the TV with interest at the rate of 12% from 05.07.2010 till payment, towards cost and compensation Rs.50,000/- is to be paid by the opposite parties.
3. The 1st opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- The 1st opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint and no more amount is claimable from this opposite parties. This opposite party is only a surveyor appointed by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was informed of inspection of the TV set along with 2nd opposite party but the complainant himself or his technician were not in the house of the complainant when the 1st opposite party visited the house. The TV set was received by this opposite party only on 10.11.2010. The other allegations are incorrect. The TV set was handed over to this opposite party which was given to the 3rd opposite party on 12.11.2010 and job sheet was given to this opposite party only on18.11.2010. Upon enquiry by this opposite party it was known that LCD panel fitted to the set is not available in market because of stopping production. The 3rd opposite party was ready to refund 75% of the unit cost subjected to the invoice and ID proof and this was also reported to 2nd opposite party. The allegation of the complainant that this opposite party demanded some amount from the complainant which also baseless and false. There is no delay on the part of this opposite party rendering the service to the complainant. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to this opposite party.
4. The sum up of the version filed by 2nd opposite party is as follows:- The 2nd opposite party has issued an insurance policy covering the insurance of LG LCD TV set worth Rs.24,000/-. The policy was extended from 02.12.2009 to 01.12.2010 that is also bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. Upon claim of the complainant this opposite party deputed a surveyor for the assessment of loss. The surveyor submitted a report to this opposite party that the TV set was not damaged due to any perils under the policy conditions. This opposite party also received a letter from the LG Electronics Pvt Ltd, Calicut on 08.12.2010 that the LCD TV set is beyond repairable because of the non availability of the panel. The panel fitted to the set was Korean make, it was outdated and stopped by the manufacturer. The insurer in this case is not liable to indemnify any damage of the insured. As per the policy condition, there is no provision to replace entire articles and more over the problem of the TV set is not related to policy conditions for replacement. The allegation of the complainant is absolutely based on manufacturing defect of the article and the manufacturer already informed this opposite party that 75% of the unit cost can be refunded. The complaint is not sustainable and it is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The 2nd opposite party also filed an additional version. The allegation of the complainant that the LCD TV is having mechanical defect is not correct. The complainant himself knows that the defect of the LCD TV not related to the manufacturing defect. After filing version of this opposite party the amendment of the complaint that the LCD TV set is having mechanical defect is not maintainable. The complaint itself to be dismissed with cost.
6. The 3rd opposite party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The complainant informed the 3rd opposite party the defect of a LCD TV set. The panel of the set is not available in India and it is non suppliable part by 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party admitted the receivel of TV unit and the request to rectify the problem. The 1st opposite party was informed by this opposite party, 75% of the unit cost can be refunded to the customer within 15 working days subjected the production of invoice and ID proof.
7. The Points that are to be decided:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties? 2. Relief and Cost.
8. Points No.1 and 2 :- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Opposite parties No.1 and 2. Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 to B9 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the complainant and opposite parties are also brought out in this case.
9. The case of the complainant is that the LCD TV set manufactured by the 3rd opposite party became disfunct due to the defect of the LCD panel. The 2nd opposite party is the insurer who insured the household equipments including this LCD TV set. The 1st opposite party is the surveyor appointed by the 2nd opposite party, who was deputed to asses the loss and damages by the insurer. The LCD TV set was entrusted to 1st opposite party. The household articles were insured during the period 02.11.2009 to 01.12.2010. The value of the LG LCD 2630 R TV set is Rs.24,000/- as detailed in Ext.A2.
10. The complainant preferred the claim before the 2nd opposite party for Rs.24,000/-. The policy conditions refers the claim form fire allied perils excluding jewelery and valuables belonging to the proposer and members of his family permanently residing with him and also Burglary, housebreaking including theft and breakdown of domestic appliances. The TV set is also an article insured as per Ext.A1. The defect of the LCD TV set is nothing but mechanical. The 3rd opposite party admitted that the LCD panel of the TV set is outdated and not available in the market. The complainant is examined as PW1, it is evidenced that upon online complaint by this complainant on the defect of the TV set the technician came to his house and informed that the panel is not available it is a Korean make. The defective TV was taken by this complainant through an agent and entrusted it to the 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party also admitted that the TV set was given to them by the 1st opposite party. The TV set entrusted to the 3rd opposite party was not in repairable condition because of non availability of the LCD panel. The 1st opposite party is examined as OPW1 and 2nd opposite party is examined as OPW2. The service engineer of the 3rd opposite party is examined as OPW3. The evidence of OPW3 is that the LCD panel of the complainant's TV set is not repairable and 75% of the price of the units is refundable to the complainant as admitted. The panel of the TV set is not repairable and that product is Korean make. OPW3 has not evidenced how much is the warranty period of the TV set and no evidence is brought out to disclose the warranty period. The 3rd opposite party has not evidenced on what ground the amount refundable is fixed to 75% of the price of the unit. The 1st opposite party is only a surveyor who was appointed to assess the loss of the article. The 2nd opposite party is not bound by the policy conditions to compensate the complainant.
11. Admittedly the LCD TV set of the complainant is having a value of Rs.24,000/- which was insured for that amount. The actual price of the TV set admitted by the complainant is also Rs.24,000/-. The complainant is entitled to get refunded the price of the TV set along with cost. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are absolved from any liability.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 3rd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Only) to the complainant the price of the LCD TV set along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards cost and compensation. This Order is to be complied by Opposite party No.3 within one month from the date of receipt.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 29th March 2012.
Date of Filing:27.11.2010.
