IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE 26^thDAY OF APRIL2021

Present: -    Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

                      Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.264/2016

Shaji S.,

Shan Mahal, Mylakkadu P.O.,

Kottiyam, Kollam.                                                                             :           Complainant

(By Adv.MaruthadiR.Sreeraj)

V/S

1. Mass Cable Vision,

           Mylakkadu P.O., Kollam

            (By Adv.AnushaShibu)

2. Bajaj Alliance,

           General Insurance Company Ltd.,

            G.B.Plaza,

           Airport Road, Yervada, Pune 411006.

           (By Adv.Sudheer Bose)                                                            :           Opposite parties

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

1. This is acase based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

          The complainant purchased a Sharp LED TV 39LE 155mm from the Alias Electronics, Pallimukku, Kollamon 06.09.2014 with the financial assistance of 2^nd opposite party Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Pvt.Ltd.  The finance had to be repaid in monthly instalments and he had closed the finance without any default.   According to the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party had issued an extended warranty policy for a period of  two years from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.2017 by remitting additional amount.  The 1^st opposite party is engaged in cable TV network by name “Mass Cable Vision” and they hadgiven cable connection to complainant’s TV at his home.  It is alleged by the complainant the 1^st opposite

party had not taken any mandatory precautions regarding the safety and security of the cable TV system.  On 02.10.2016 early morning coconut leaf has fallen from a coconut tree upon the cable leading to the setup box and TV of the complainant.  Ultimately TV fall on the floor and LED panel of the TV was damaged fully.  According to the complainant he had registered a complaint before the Alias Electronics, Pallimukku for curing the defect of the TV.  But the technicians from the said show room visited and examined the TV and opined that LED panel was damaged and it has to be replaced for it will cost Rs.30,000/- and further they told the complainant that as per provisions of the extended policy and extended warranty for a period of two years is only against all manufacturing defects of the TV.  According to the complainant he had obtained extended warranty for any unfortunate situations and circumstances.  But the opposite parties with a malafide intention deliberately denied the valuable right of the complainant by refusing to act upon the insurance protection availed from the 2^nd opposite party.  It is further alleged by the complainant there is very serious latches from the part of the 1^st opposite party who is the cable operator and service provider.  The act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint. 

3.       The 1^st opposite party filed version resisting the averments in the complaint and raising the contention that there is no deficiency in service from their part.  According to the 1^st opposite party they had providedthe connection by safeguarding all the casualties that may be happened.  The 1^st opposite party further contends that the connection provided extend up to setup box.  According to the 1^st opposite party they had installed the cable with sufficient safety.  Cable was fixed at a permanent hook fitted on the terrus of the building and from the hook it was drawn to set up box of TV through the ventilator whole of the building.  As alleged by the complainant even if a coconut tree leaf fall on the cable there is no connection between cable and TV and hence no damage can be occurred to the T.V.

4. The 1^st opposite party further contend that the cable is connected to the set up box with a cable socket which can be removed from the set up box by applying a smll force and from the set up box the connection is given to TV by means of a AV code wire.  If it all anything happens to the set up box, AV code is not likely to tightened or broken and hence there is no chance of causing damage to TV from such a cable connection.  According to the 1^st opposite party the allegation raised by the complainant is baseless with regarding to falling of coconut leaf in the cable and due to the impact of that which resulted in the damage and breakage of LED panel.  In the circumstances there is no deficiency in service from the part of 1^st opposite party.

5.       The 2^nd opposite party filed version resisting the averments in the complaint contending that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Insurance Company to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble  Commission.  It is further contended by the 2^nd opposite party Insurance policy is a contract and both the parties are under obligation to obey /fulfil all the averments and conditions of the same therein.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the subject matter of this complaint is an accident sustained to the LED TV purchased by the complainant.  It is the admitted case of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party had issued an extended warranty policy covers period from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.2017.  The subject matter of the policy is a Sharp LED Television bearing model No.39LE440.  As per the provisions of the policy it gives an extended warranty for a period of two years, only against all manufacturing defects of the TV.  It is further alleged by the 2^nd opposite party the admitted case of the complainant  that on 02.10.2016 coconut leaf had fallen from a coconut tree upon the cable leading to the set up box and TV of the complainant.  Due to the impact of that it hit upon the cable the attached set up box and TV also fallen down by which the TV was completely damaged.  It is also the allegation of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party who has served the cable connection is negligent in drawing the

cable line without proper care and caution and without adhering to any safety measures.  Hence according to the 2^nd opposite party the wrong doer in this case none other than the 1^st opposite party.  Even the main relief is also sought against the 1^st opposite party as they are the cable operator and service provider.  It is further contended by the 2^nd opposite party the cause of damage caused to the TV is not due to any manufacturing defect but due to an accident occurred at the complainant’s home itself and hence there is no question of applying extended warranty.  The warranty coverage contemplates the repair of reimbursement of damages arising out of the manufacturing of the product.  If the owner of the product sustained any monetary loss due to the defective manufacturing, the manufacturer is liable to repair the same or reimburse its cost of repair.  According to the 2^nd opposite party usually the warranty of an electronic product is available for one year only.  However this warranty can be extended for a further period of 2 years by paying additional premium.  Accordingly 2^nd opposite party has issued an extended warranty policy in respect of the TV owned by the complainant.  But it goes without saying that the cause of damage to the TV in this case is not due to any manufacturing defect.  Hence the manufacturer is not liable to repair or reimburse the cost of damages under the cover of extended warranty.  Even by going with the facts of this case it can be seen that there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  Even if the complainant is entitled to get reimbursement of the cost of repair, the 1^st opposite party who is the cable operator and service provider alone is liable for the same.  The complaint is filed in experimental basis without any basis and bonafides.

6.       In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties in causing damage to the TV of the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get the benefit of extended warranty?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the damaged TV  repaired or replaced by a new TV?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?
5. Reliefs and costs?

7.       Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1, PW2 and Exts.A1 to A4 documents and Ext.C1.  Ext.A1 is the bill issued from Alias Electronics Pallimukku, Kollam dated 6^th September 2014.  Ext.A2 is the extended warranty policy issued from Bajaj General Insurance Company dated 29^th September 2014.  Ext.A3 is the receipt issued from Mass Cable Vision dated 18.03.2016 for Rs.1,750/-.  Ext.A4 is the photo of the broken LED TV and Ext.C1 is the commission report. The 1^st opposite party has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.  The 2^nd opposite party has got marked Ext.D1 document.  Complainant and 2^nd opposite party advanced oral arguments.  1^st opposite party failed to makeany oral argument.  The complainant or any of the opposite parties have not filed any notes of arguments.

Point No. 1 to 4

 8.      For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these four points are considered together.  The complainant purchased a Sharp LEDTV 39LE 155mm with the financial assistance of 2^nd opposite party Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Pvt.Ltd.  The complainant had closed the finance without any default.  At the time of the purchasing the TV the complainant had obtained extended warranty providing additional charges and it was from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.2017.  1^st opposite party has engaged in the work of cable network and signal installed the cable connection to the complainant’s TV.  It is further pleaded by the complainant the 1^st opposite party has not complied the mandatory precautious regarding the safety and security with regard to installation of cable to the complainant’s TV.

However on 02.10.2016 at early morning a coconut tree leaf has fallen from a coconut tree upon the cable leading to the set up box connected in the TV of the complainant.  Ultimately the TV fell on the floor and LED panel of the TV had damaged fully.  Thereafter the complainant registered a complaint before the dealer Alias Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Pallimukku, Kollam where the technicians from the shop examined and noted the defect the LED panel has broken fully and it has to be replaced on a cost of Rs.30,000/-.  As the complainant demands for the benefits of extended warranty for a period of two years with regard to change of LED panel .  2^nd opposite party had told the extended warranty is only for manufacturing defect of the TV.  Hence there is no manufacturing defect and damage was caused due to falling a coconut leaf in the cable.  However, the complainant would argue that he had obtained extended warranty to meet any unfortunate situation and circumstances.  1^st opposite party who is the service provider failed to provide appropriate service to the complainant and 2^nd opposite party refused the insurance protection.  The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is that they had installed the cable by safeguarding and anticipating all the casualties which may be happened.  The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is that they fixed the cable with necessary hooks supporting with proper stay wire.  As alleged by the complainant even if a coconut tree leaf falls on the cable further then there is no connection between cable and TV.  The cable connection is exclusively with the set up box using a cable socket which usually removed from the set up box with a small force and connection to the TV is given from the set up box by means of AV code wire.  According if any accident occurs it will not affect the TV and there will be no damages.

9.       According to the complainant the cable connection provided by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant is without taking proper care and caution and that is why the defect occurred to the TV.  For proving this fact PW2 advocate commissioner was examined and got marked Ext.C1 wherein it is mentioned that ‘tI_nÄhbÀSnhoSn\p ap³hiw ØnXnsN¿p-¶-XmbsX§nÂsSen-t^m¬ tI_nÄh¨vsI«n-bn-cn-¡p-¶-Xm-Wv.  AÃmsXaävbmsXmcphook Itfmstay wire ItfmCÃm-¯-Xm-Wv.  Snho«n-te¡vSnCe-Iv{SnIv t]mÌn \n¶pwCe-Iv{SnIv IW-£³ FSp-¯n-cn-¡p¶ wire hoSn\p apIÄ \ne-bnsesX¡v `mKw ap³h-i-ap-ff sNdnb _m¡-Wn-bn-te¡vhook IÄ h¨vLSn-¸n-¨n-«p-f-f-Xm-Wv.  It is crystal clear from the above report that the cable wire is not properly fixed by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party as compared with the electric wire which is deficiency in service on the part of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  In Ext.C1 it is mentioned under 4<sup>th</sup> point that ‘LED TV bpsSLED panel (screen) s\SpsI s]m«n-bn-cn-¡p-¶XpwTV tI_n-fnÂconnect sNbvXv {]hÀ¯n-¸n-¡p-hm³ t\m¡n-b-t¸mÄLED TV {]hÀ¯-\-tbm-K-y-a-sövt_m[-y-s¸-«n-«p-f-f-Xp-am-Wv.’Also under the 5<sup>th</sup> point it is mentioned that ‘tI_nÄ I½o-j-WÀ sNdp-XmbnXmtg¡v hen-¨-t¸mÄta¸SntI_nÄ sse³ Xmtg¡v hen-bp-¶XpwLED TV bv¡vsNdnbCf¡w kw`-hn-¨n-«p-f-f-Xp-am-Wv.  Snset up box tI_nÄ hen-¡p-t¼mÄ Xmtg¡v ]Xn-¡p-¶-Xp-am-sW¶vt_m[-y-s¸-«p.’So it is crystal clear from Ext.C1 report and deposition of PW2 that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and that the complainant has sustained a loss of 35,900/-(value of LED TV).  Even though PW1 was cross examined by the counsel for the 1^stopposite party vehemently nothing was brought out to discredit the above evidence of PW1.  Hence it is clear that deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party is well establishment by the complainant.

10. Though the 2^nd opposite party Bajaj Alliance Company is made as opposite party in this complainant there is no specific allegation against 2^nd opposite party. The only reason alleged is that 2^nd opposite party had provided extended warranty for the complainant’s TV.  It is argued by the 2^nd opposite party that insurance policy is a contract and both parties are under  obligation to obey /fulfil all the terms and conditions of the same in the strict sense of words written therein.  As the terms and conditions of the policy are sacrosanct the claim alleged is also to be processed within the precincts of policy only.  It is further contended by the 2^nd opposite party that the subject matter of the complainant is an accident sustained to the LED TV purchased by the complainant.  It is the admitted case of thecomplainant that the 2^nd opposite party had issued an extended warranty policy for a period of two years.  Hence the said policy covers the period from 06.09.2015 to 05.09.2017.  The subject matter of the policy is a Sharp LED TV therein model No.39LE440 as per the provisions of the policy an extended warranty for a period of two years, against all manufacturing defect of the TV.  The 2^nd opposite party would further contend that complainant has an admitted case on 02.10.2016 coconut leaves has fallen from a coconut tree upon the cable leading to the set up box and due to the impact TV has also fallen down and completely damaged. 

11.     The allegation of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party who has served the cable connection is negligent in drawing the cable line without proper care and caution and without adhering to any safety measures.  Hence the wrongdoer in this case is none other than the 1^st opposite party.  Even the main relief sought for is against the 1^st opposite party as they are cable operator and service provider.  PW1 would admit during cross examination done by the learned counsel for 2^nd opposite party that ‘ASnØm\-]-c-ambnHcphÀj-t¯¡v manufacturing warranty D­v.  Ext.A2 {]Im-c-amWv 2 hÀj-t¯¡v IqSnextend sNbvX-Xv.(-tNm-Z-yw) AsX(-D-¯-cw).  Extended warranty{]Im-c-w manufacturing defects \pwpoor workmanship \pw am{X-atà C³jp-d³kv Df-fq(-tNm-Z-yw).  IqSp-X-embn F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã.(-D-¯-cw)  \n§-fpsSTV damage BbXvmanufacturing defects sImt­mpoor workmanship sImt­m AÃ-tÃm(-tNm-Z-yw)  AÃ(-D-¯-cw). TV XmsghoWmWv s]m«n-b-Xv.  It is crystal clear from the deposition of PW1 that the 2^nd opposite party is havingno nexus with alleged incident.  Even according to the complainant the 2^nd opposite party has provided extended warranty but only for manufacturing defect and poor

workmanship.  Again when PW2 the commissioner has been cross examined by the 2^nd opposite party PW2 has categorically deposed that TV damaged BIp-¶-Xn\p ap³]v AXn\p hÃmanufacturing defects D­m-bn-cpt¶mF¶v Rm³ t\m¡n-bn-«n-Ã.  The above evidence of the commissioner is very pertinent.  The complainant is not having any specific allegation regarding any manufacturing defect.  The complainant had a specific case that he could not be able to use his LED TV 39LE 155mm due to the negligent installation of cable by the 1^st opposite party.  The materials available on record would indicate that the 1^st opposite party had provided the cable connection without taking proper care and caution and that is why the defect occurred to the TV.  The above aspects are  clearly establishedby Ext.C1 commissioner report and deposition of PW2 commissioner.  In the view of materials discussed above its crystal clear that the complainant would come under the definition of the consumer and opposite party would come under the ambit of service provider and there is deficiency in service on the side of the 1stopposite party in installing the cable connection without taking mandatory precautions regarding the safety and security of the TV.

12.     The prayer in the complaint to direct the opposite parties either to get the LED TV repaired or to replace a new LED TV.  But we have already found that 2^nd opposite party is not liable as there is no manufacturing defect for the TV.  It is clear from the available materials that the complainant has utilised the said LED TV for 2 years and about one month.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the LED TV replaced by a new one or get its full invoice price in case the 1^st opposite party failed to make the TV in a working condition. On evaluating the entire materials available on records we come to conclusion that the complainant’sTV has been damaged due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the LED TV repaired and made in a working condition and also entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings.  Points answered accordingly.

Point No.5

In the result complaint stands allowedin the following terms.

1. The 1^stopposite party is directed to repair the complainant’s LED TV and make it in a working condition.
2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
3. The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant as there is no manufacturing defect for the TV and hence exonerated from liability.
4. The 1^st opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover 50% of the value of the LED TV as shown in Ext.A1 retail invoice compensation and costs along with interest @ 9 % per annumfor the entire amount except for costs from the 1^stopposite party and fromits assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the   26^thday of  April 2021.

                                                                                                                        E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-                                                                    

                                                             STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                                        Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                : Shaji

PW2                : AthulyaManohar

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1            : bill issued from Alias Electronics Pallimukku, Kollam dated 6.9.2014

Ext.A2            :extended warranty policy issued from Bajaj General Insurance Company

dated 29.09.2014

Ext.A3            : receipt issued from Mass Cable Vision dated 18.03.2016 for 1,750/-

Ext.A4            : photo of the broken LED TV

Ext.C1            : Commission report

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1           : extended warranty policy condition                   

                                                        E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-                                                                    

                                  STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent