BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 16^th DAY OF MARCH 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to replace a LED TV purchased from the OPs, in default to refund Rs.84,000/- being the price of the TV together with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with cost of the proceedings.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased a LG, LED TV for a sum of Rs.84,000/- on 03.01.2011 from the showroom of OP-1 manufactured by OP-2.  The said TV was delivered to complainant with one year warranty against manufacturing defect starting from 03.01.2011.  Further an extended warranty for one more year was given based on the scratch card won by the complainant.  The complainant installed the TV in his house on 04.01.2011 and since beginning the performance of the TV was not good.  That on 13.02.2012 the said TV went off completely and immediately complainant informed OP-1 and requested for repairs.

The serviceman of OPs inspected the TV on 16.02.2012 but could not rectify the defect however he charged Rs.110/-.  On 02.04.2012 one more engineer of OPs inspected the TV and again on 12.04.2012 another engineer inspected the TV and re-fixed M.N PCB.  However, the TV did not function since then 13.02.2012 the TV is not at all is working condition and the OPs have failed to rectify the mistake and also failed to replace the said defective TV with a new T.V despite all these things have been happened during the warranty period.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OPs to replace the said TV with a new TV of the same model, in default to refund Rs.84,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a from 03.01.2011 till realization, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, hardship suffered together with litigation cost.

3. Despite service of notice, OP-1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte.  In response to the notice issued, OP-2 entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

It is true that the complainant had purchased a TV on 03.01.2011 from OP-1 and the said TV was delivered with one year warranty from the date of its purchase.  There is no any extended warranty as alleged in the complaint.  As on the date of reporting the defect in the said TV, the warranty period was over.  The said TV was performing well till a complaint was lodged on 14.02.2012.  This OP denies the allegation that on 16.02.2012 the engineers of OPs inspected the TV and thereafter failed to rectify the mistake.  The complainant for the first time registered his complaint on 14.02.2012 and immediately after receiving the complaint, service engineer visited the house of the complainant and inspected the TV and found out the defects and informed the same to the complainant and charged service cost of Rs.100/- as the TV was out of warranty period.  The service engineer never visited the house of the complainant on 02.04.2012 and 12.04.2012 as alleged in the complaint.  Since the said TV is not within the warranty period, the complainant is required to pay repair charges for whatever the repairs that are necessary to be carried out to rectify the defect in the TV.  There is no extended warranty of one more year as claimed by the complainant.  The OPs have given satisfactory service to the complainant as and when any complaints were received.  The OP is not liable to replace the same TV with new one or refund the price of the TV since warranty period is over.  This OP is not liable to render free service after the expiry of the warranty period.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OP-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. After the version was filed by OP-2, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, he submitted his evidence by way of affidavit.  Thereafter, one S.Gopala Krishnan, Branch Service Manager of OP-2 filed his affidavit evidence in support of the averments made in the version.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.    

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, sworn testimony of the complainant and the documents produced by him.  Also perused the averments made in the version, the sworn testimony of OP-2 and documents relied upon by them.  Written submissions submitted by both the parties and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a LG LED 47LE5500 model Television from the showroom of OP-1 for a sum of Rs.84,000/- on 03.01.2011.  It is also not in dispute that, the said TV was functioning satisfactorily till the complainant registered his complaint for the first time on 14.02.2012.  Though the complainant claims that, since beginning the performance of the TV was not good but there is no any credible material on record to believe that the performance of the said TV was not satisfactory since from the installation on 04.01.2011 till 13.02.2012.  Before entering into the merits of the case first let us find out as to whether the problem in the TV aroused during the warranty period.

9. Admittedly, the said TV was delivered with one year warranty against manufacturing defect starting from 03.01.2011.  The complainant claims that he was offered a scratch card by OP-1 and on scratching the card he won an extended warranty of one more year.  Therefore, it is contended by the complainant that the said TV is covered with warranty period for a period of two years from 03.01.2011.

10. The OP denied the extended warranty period as claimed by the complainant and insisted that the said TV is covered with warranty for one year only.  To substantiate his contention that he won the extended warranty period of one year, the complainant has produced the original scratch card.  It could be seen from the scratch card of OP-2 Company, bearing No.970720 that the complainant after scratching the relevant portion in the said card won an extended warranty of one more year.  The said scratch card contains the terms and conditions governing the extended warranty of the TV for one more year.  According to the said terms and conditions, to avail the extended warranty, the complainant was expected to register the scratch card number within 7 days from the date of purchase of the TV either by calling at customer care number 1800-180-9999 (MTNL, BSNL Toll-Free) & 39010909 (Prefix STD Code) or by sending OP-2 to SMS at 97171 24111 as provided in the card.  Thus, it is clear from the said terms and conditions that the complainant is entitled to extended period of warranty of one more year only if he complies with the conditions as mentioned above.  The complainant either in his plaint or in his affidavit evidence did not aver that he complied the terms and conditions as mentioned above, immediately after winning the extended warranty of one more year.  Unless and until the complainant complies the terms and conditions of the scratch card he is not entitled for the extended warranty of one more year.  Since the complainant has failed to prove that he has complied with the terms and conditions of the scratch card, he cannot claim extended warranty of one more year.

11. Admittedly, the complainant enjoyed warranty period of one year to the said TV from 03.01.2011 the date of which he purchased the TV.  The said warranty period expired on the mid night of 02.01.2012.  The defect in the TV has arisen on 13.02.2012 i.e., after expiry of the warranty period.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled either for replacement of the said TV with new TV or the price of the said TV.  No problem/defect of any sort has been found in the said TV during the warranty period.  Whatever the defect/problem which the complainant faced in the said TV was only after expiry of warranty period.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed by him.  Since, the warranty period has expired the complainant is liable to get the defect rectified by paying necessary charges.  For the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 16^th day of March 2016)

MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 17.10.2012.

1. Sri.N.Ravindra.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties-2 dated 20.11.2012.

1. Sri.S.Gopala Krishnan.

Documents produced by the Opposite Party-2:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*