Date of Filing : 09.11.2017
Date of Disposal: 21.10.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com., ICWA., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.11/2019
THIS FRIDAY, THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
Mr.A.Neolmon, S/o.Mr.Antony,
No.32/22, Vaishnavi Apartments,
Jagathambal Street, Vijayalakshmipuram,
Ambattur, Chennai -600 053. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.M/s.LG.Electronics India Private Limited,
Regd.Office at A Wind (3rd Floor),
D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi.
2.M/s.Berjayaa Marketing Private Limited,
No.495/28, M.T.H.Road, Ambattur O.T.,
Chennai -600 053 (Opp. Stud Ford Hospital),
Tamil Nadu.
3.Bajai Fiance Limited,
Mumbai – Pune Road,
Akurdi, Pune – 411 035,
Maharastra, India. ...Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.Murali, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : Mr.T.R.Kumaravel, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : Exparte.
Counsel for the 3rd opposite party : Mr.M.Arunachalam, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 06.10.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.Murali, Advocate counsel for the complainant, Mr.T.R.Kumaravel, Advocate counsel for the 1st opposite party and Mr.M.Arunachalam, Advocate counself for the 2nd opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective television along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged television with a new television, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that the complainant had purchased an LG LED television from the 2nd opposite party vide invoice for a sum of Rs.49,500/- on 05.06.2017 and on the same day the product was delivered to the complainant and was installed on 07.06.2017. From the date of installation the television was not working in a proper manner and the complainant infers that there was manufacturing defects in the television and the complainant made several calls to the 2nd opposite party but they did not respond to the calls and hence the complainant directly approached the 2nd opposite party and requested them to send a technician to repair the television. The 2nd opposite party sent one technician named Mr.Vasanth who inspected the television and the said that there was some external damage and there was no warranty for such damages. Subsequent to that the 1st opposite party on further complaint by the complainant sent a technician named Mr.Rahman who informed that the inner picture tube of the television has got damaged and there was no external damage and it was only manufacturing defect. The complainant further submitted that there was no damage to the outer screen. Thus alleging deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties in selling the defective television the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs;
To direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged television with new television;
To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony;
To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation;
To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party:-
The 1st opposite party filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant stating that it is the complainant who knowingly or unknowingly had damaged the LED monitor. Further it is submitted by him that if the complainant had suffered with the defective television from the day one, he would have returned the product and asked for replacement of the product. Further it was submitted that the LED monitor would get damage only when any hard objects hit on it and the damage of LCD would not be visible outside when it is in off condition. Thus it was submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the television sold by the 2nd opposite party and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
Inspite of sufficient notice the 2nd opposite party failed to appear before this commission and hence he was called absent and was set exparte on 25.04.2019 for non appearance and for non filing of any written version.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 3rd opposite party:-
The 3rd opposite party filed written version contending that there was no allegations against them in the complaint and they have nothing to do with the manufacturing defect alleged in the complaint. Further it is submitted by them that they are not liable to pay any amount as no prayer was sought against them and also there is no cause of action against them. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite parties 1 & 3 proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed by them.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the complaint allegations with regard to the manufacturing defect in the television purchased by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party and manufactured by the 1st opposite party resulting in deficiency in service has been proved by the complainant with sufficient evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1&2
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party for purchase of LED TV dated 05.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party for V guard Stabilizer dated 05.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Warranty card issued by 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A3;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 08.07.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
Reply notice from the 2nd opposite party dated 17.07.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
Notice from the complainant to the counsel of 2nd opposite party dated 01.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
Heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the pleadings, evidences and written arguments filed by them. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the complainant is that within 51 days of the purchase of the television from the 2nd opposite party, the television stopped working and the technician who inspected the television informed that the inner picture tube of the television has got damaged and there was no external damage and it was only manufacturing defect.
On the other hand the argument advanced by the 1st opposite party is that there was no chance for the inner picture tube of the television to get damage and it has occurred only due to some external hit or damage. They argued that if at all the television was not working from the day one, the complainant would have returned the product and would have insisted for replacement of the television. The 3rd opposite party being a financier argued that there is no cause of action and prayer against them and hence they are not liable in any way.
On appreciation of the materials and pleadings we are of the view that when the television purchased from the 2nd opposite party had suffered damage of picture tube within a short span of 51 days the same must have occurred only due to some manufacturing defect. Though it was the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party that there would have been some external hit or damage caused by the act of the complainant resulting in the damage of the inner picture tube of the television, being the manufacturer and the dealer they should have produced some materials to prove that without any external damage there could not be any internal damage. Further it is also to be noted that the product is within the warranty period as per Ex.A3. In the legal reply notice issued by the 1st opposite party they have admitted that the complainant has given the first complaint on 27.07.2017, after 51 days from the date of purchase that is on 05.06.2017. There arises no necessity in such circumstances for the product to be inspected by an expert to establish the defect of the television, when it is the specific contention by the complainant that one technician sent by 1st opposite party named Mr.Rahman who inspected the television had opined that the picture tube of the television worn out due to some manufacturing defect. In such circumstances the burden lies of the 1st opposite party to examine their technician to disprove the contention advanced by the complainant. Hence, this commission comes to the conclusion that the television sold by the 2nd opposite party and manufactured by the 1st opposite party suffers with some inherent manufacturing defect. We hold that the opposite parties 1 & 2 should be held liable for the defective television delivered to the complainant and for replacement of the same. The 3rd opposite party could not be held liable as he was only mere financier for the purchase of the television by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the complaint allegation has been successfully proved by the complainant.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the opposite parties 1 & 2 had committed deficiency in service and had failed to replace the television or rectify the defects when the television stopped working within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase, we feel it would be the appropriate remedy to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to replace the television jointly. For the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant they have sought for Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. As we feel it is an exorbitant amount we order Rs.25,000/- to be paid as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant and towards cost of proceedings we order Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties 1 & 2.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the 3rd opposite party and partly allowed against the opposite parties 1& 2 directing them to jointly and severelly
a) to replace the LG LED Television or to refund a sum of Rs.49,500/- (Rupees forty nine thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21st day of October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 05.06.2017 Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party for LED Television (Invoice No.170100811). Xerox
Ex.A2 05.06.2017 Invoice issued by the 2ndopposit party for V Guard stabilizer (Invoice No.1701100814). Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Warranty card issued by 2nd opposite party Xerox
Ex.A4 08.07.2017 Legal notice issued by complainant to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 17.07.2017 Reply notice from opposite party to complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 01.08.2017 Notice from complainant to counsel of opposite party. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
