Order-10.
Date-17/05/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short, is that OP1 is the manufacturer of Electronic Items like LED TV, Mobile etc. and OP is engaged in the business of selling such electronic items of OP1. On 04-02-2016 the complainant purchased one 43 inch LED TV, Model Name 43A7200MHD, Sl No.00070B854100181 manufactured by OP1 from online ecommerce site paytm.com for a sum of Rs.25,999 INR + 80 INR shipping charges. On 26-08-2016 a black portion appeared on the left side of the LED TV and the complainant registered a complaint on toll free number of OP1 on 27-08-2016. On 27-08-2016 evening, a technician of OP1 visited to repair it but could not repair it and went away of saying that he would inform on 29-08-2016 after speaking with OP1. On 29-08-2016 complainant got a call from OP2 informing him that LED internal panel is broken and the complainant have to pay them 25,000 INR to fix it within one year warranty period. The complainant, thereafter, immediately informed OP1 and on several dates, thereafter, there were exchange of letters on the same issue for the next two months without any solution from OPs1 and 2. Complainant has alleged that this is an internal damage occurred in the TV and no physical damage has been made from complainant’s end. On 23-09-2016 technician visited again. He did not repair it, took some external photos and dismantled the TV with back side and the problem increased more after technician visit. It is alleged that OPs1 and 2 did not bother to provide solution to the complainant and OP1 is extremely negligent in attending the complainant. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the OP1. Hence, this case.
OP1 has not contested the case despite service of summons and the case has proceeded ex parte against the OP1.
OP2 has, however, contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that this OP has been made party by the complainant for some ulterior, fraudulent and mala fide motive and to grab monetary benefit. It is stated that OP2 is the authorized service centre of OP1 and rendering services to the customers of OP1 by following certain guidelines. Complainant has purchased the television set manufactured by OP1 and complainant brought the fact to the knowledge of OP1 and OP2 was instructed to attend the television set of the complainant. OP2 deputed its technician to attend the television set and he found that the panel of the set has broken and such fact was communicated to the complainant. The complainant was asked to pay the cost of broken panel in as much as such breakage cannot happen on its own rather the same has been possibly happened due to wrong handling of the television set. It is also stated that after inspection of the defective television set the same was intimated to OP1 and the complainant was also intimated about the cost for the replacement of the panel. It is stated that OP2 had no obligation to find out any solution of the problem as alleged. It is stated that OP2 is not deficient in rendering services to the complainant and has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of invoice dated 04-02-2016, Xerox copy of letter to OP1 dated 02-09-2016 by the complainant, Xerox copies of emails on different dates in between the parties and other documents on record.
It appears that OP1 is the manufacturer and OP2 is the authorized service centre of OP1. It also appears from the documents on record that the complainant purchased the subject LED TV on 04-02-2016 and on 26-08-2016 the said LED TV exhibited some black portion appearing on the left side screen of LED TV. On inspection it was found that the LED internal panel is broken. Complainant contacted with the OPs for remove of the defect but to no good. It is not forthcoming before us that there is anything broken from physically outside the TV. There is no evidence that there is damage from outside of the TV and no physical damage has been made or visible from outside. So, the allegation of the OP that it is broken by the complainant has no leg to stand. We find that the television set has developed certain defect within the warranty period and the complainant contacted both the OPs for removal of the defect but to no good. Moreover, none came from the side of the OP1 being manufacturer to contradict or controvert the version of the complainant. OP2 is not the manufacturer, he is the authorized centre OP1 and has no expertise regarding the television set and upon instruction of OP1, technician from OP2 inspected the defective television. It is also stated by OP2 that OP2 is not in a position to find out any solution of the defective in absence of any proper instruction of OP1 and it is also stated in written version that OP1 has not given any suggestion for replacement of the broken panel. Consequently, we think OP1 has demonstrated a gesture of deficiency of service and has failed and neglected to remove the defect of the subject TV or to take any adequate or effective step, moreover, when the subject LED TV is within the warranty period.
We find that complainant has used the subject TV for about 6 months or more. So, we think that it would be proper to pass an order for replacement of the defective TV set. We do not find any cogent or sufficient reason to refund of the cost of the TV as such.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP2 and ex parte against OP1.
OP1 is directed to replace the subject LED TV with new warranty period apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and complainant is also to handover the defective LED TV set to OP1 on such replacement.
We make no order against OP2.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.
