SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to replace a new TV or refund Rs.47,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the deficiency of service on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had purchased a 52 inch ONIDA Led TV on 10/06/2015 from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.47,000/-. OP No.2 had given 2 years warranty for the TV also. On 06/05/2017 the TV become defective only giving sound without display. Then the complainant informed to OP No.2 and the service person send by OP No.2 to check the TV and opinioned that the TV almost dead and the said TV sometimes repaired if the complainant is willing to spend an amount of Rs.35,000/- and there will not be any guarantee for its future performance. The service expert stated the reason that the TV is having some manufacturing defect. Then the complainant approached OP No.2 and demanded to replace the TV with a new one as it is having manufacturing defect and warranty coverage. But 2nd OP told that the replacement can be done only the manufacturer. Then on 07/07/2017 the complainant sent a complaint to OP No.1 regarding the complaint. On 13/07/2017 the OP No.1 send a reply and demanding to send the details of the purchased product for availing the claim. The complainant submitted all necessary documents as demanded by the OP. But both OPs not take any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. So there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to both OPs. The OPs entered appearance before the commission and submitted their written version. OP1 contended that he is not aware of the dealings of the complainant with OP No.2. The demand of the complainant is beyond the warranty period and this demand cannot be accepted by OP No.2. The TV set can be repaired by the service centre only on payment of service charge. If any spare part is required should be changed on payment only. So the contention of OP No.1 is that there is no deficiency no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party. OP No.2 contended that the 2 year warranty was given by this OP No.2 to the complainant is false. The commitment of OP No.2 is only to make sales. The service given to the complainant’s TV is by the service provider of the 1st OP who advised the complainant about the defect of the TV and also the suggestion of replacement. OP No.2 contended that the defect arouse only after the warranty period. If there is any manufacturing defect beyond repair condition that has to be proved by the complainant and the same has to be replaced by 1st OP, the manufacturer. So the OP No.2 is not liable to replace the TV. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for considerations.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 expert commissioner’s report also marked. On opposite parties’ side Dw1 and Dw2 examined as Ext.B1 also marked.
Issue No.1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the OPs. The documents Ext.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 expert commissioner’s report also marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant the TV was purchased on 10/06/2015 for an amount Rs. 47,000/- as per Ext.A1 bill from OP No.2. As per Ext.A2 the warranty card there is 2 year warranty for the TV. But the marking is objected by OP No.1 to state that not contain the terms and conditions. In Dw1’s cross examination he admitted that പരാതിക്കാരൻ ഹാജരാക്കിയ warrany കാർഡ് അപൂര്ണമാണെന്നു കാണിക്കുന്നതിന് നിങ്ങൾ വല്ല രേഖകളും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ? ഇല്ല (Ans ). ഒരു സാധനം നിര്മിച്ചതിൽ നിര്മാണതകരാർ ഉണ്ടായാൽ അത് replace ചെയ്‌തു നൽകേണ്ട ഉത്തരവാദിത്വം manufacturer ക്കു ആണെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ warranty period ഇൽ repair ചെയ്യാൻ പറ്റാത്തതാണെങ്കിൽ replace ചെയ്‌തു കൊടുക്കും. ഡാറ്റാസ് പ്രകാരം പാനൽ തകരാറാണെന്നു മനസ്സിലായി. ഞാൻ ടിവിയുടെ തകരാർ പരിഹരിച്ചു കൊടുക്കാൻ പോയില്ല. As per Ext.C1 the expert commissioner’s report it is clearly stated that the TV is not in working condition. It is faulty. The fault symptoms – No picture in the screen, sound OK, TV screen with blue colour (back light) such problem is due to faults in T con board and LCD panel of the television set”, So as per the evidence and C1 report the OPs are bound to replace the TV or refund the amount to complainant. At the time of cross examination the OP No.2 states that "പരാതിക്കാരൻ കോടതിയിൽ ഹാജരാക്കിയ Ext A2 രേഖ ഫാബ്രിക്കേറ്റ ചെയ്തതാണ്. അതിൽ തിരുത്തു ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് ഉത്തരത്തിൽ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ? സത്യവാങ്മൂലത്തിൽ ഉണ്ട്. ഉത്തരത്തിൽ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. warranty കാർഡ് ഇഷ്യൂ ചെയ്തതും അതിൽ ഒപ്പിട്ടതും സീൽ വച്ചതും കണ്ണൂർ നന്ദിലത് ജി മാർട്ടിൽ നിന്നാണോ? അതെ. Warranty card issue ആയതിലെഒപ്പും സീലും കണ്ണൂർ നന്ദിലത് ജി മാർട്ടിലെ ജീവനക്കാരൻറെതാന്. Documents shown to the witness (Ext.A2) ആ തകരാർ സർവീസ് ചെയ്‌തു നൽകാനോ replace ചെയ്‌തു കൊടുക്കാനൊ ഞങ്ങൾ തയ്യാറല്ല. അത് OP 1 ചെയ്തുകൊടുക്കണം.” As per OP No.2 he produced the Ext.B1 document the extended warranty. The complainant admitted that Ext.B1 is given when products are purchased. So we are of the considered view that the OPs 1 and 2 were liable either to repair or replace the TV. Since they failed to do so. We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and 2. Hence the issue NO.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3
As discussed above the TV purchased by the complainant became defective on 06/05/2017 ie, within the warranty period. The opposite parties are not amenable for repairing the TV with free of cost also. As per Ext.C1 report also the TV became faulty, the fault symptoms- no picture in the screen, TV screen with blue colour (backlight) such problem is due to faults in T con board and LCD panel of the television set. So we hold that the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the OPs jointly and severally liable to replace the TV or refund the value of TV to the complainant. There is priority of contract between the OPs and the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs jointly and severally liable to replace the TV or refund Rs.47,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.7,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to replace the TV or to refund the value of TV of Rs.47,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.47,000/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1 - Tax invoice dated 10/06/2015
A2 - Warranty Card dated 10/06/2015
A3 - Letter issued by complainant to OP
A4 - Reply notice
C1 - Expert commission report
Pw1 - Complainant
Dw1 - Sunil Kumar(OP1)
Dw2 - Binesh (OPNo.2)
B1 - Extend warranty
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
