D.O.F: 03/03/2018
D.O.O: 31/01/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.40/17
Dated this, the 31th day of January 2019
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
Mr.Udaya Kumar,
S/o.Kantappa,R/at K.K.Nivas, :Complainant
Post: R.D.Nagar, Kasaragod Taluk and District
(Adv:K.Kumaran Nair)
- M/s. National Radio Electric Co.Ltd.,
Near New Bus Stand, Kasaragod Taluk and District:Opposite Parties
(Adv: Udaya Kumar.R)
- M/s Speed Care Service Centre, Kabban Arcade,
-
ORDER
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
This complaint filed under section12 of Consumer Protection Act is for an order directing the opposite parties to repair the T.V under warranty and also to pay compensation and cost to the complainant .
The gist of the complaint is that:-
On 25/08/2015 complainant had purchased a Sharp T.V worth Rs. 34600/- from opposite party No: 1. opposite party No: 1 has offered 1+2 year warranty for the T.V set. On 14/01/2017 the T.V become function less and opposite party No: 2 took T.V set to service centre for repair. Opposite party No:2 told that it is simple problem and could be set right within 2 days. But thereafter the opposite party No:2 prolonged the service and complainant could not watch the T.V. The opposite party No:2 told that display board of T.V has damaged and it will set right under warranty. The opposite party No: 2 never mentioned about the defect of display board at the time of entrustment. The alleged display board complaint might have happened after the entrustment of T.V for repair from the custody of opposite party No: 2. So the complainant is entitled for repair of T.V under the warranty at free of cost. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the complaint has suffered much hardship, mental agony, inconvenience, loss of time and money. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version, opposite party No:1 contended that complainant directly contacted opposite party No: 2 after using the T.V years by alleging manufacturing defect. So the manufacture is also necessary party in the case. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No:1 and complaint may be dismissed. Opposite party No: 2 contended that the complainant had registered a complaint and opposite party No: 2 engineer found that backlight is defective and other complaint if any can be detected after rectifying the backlight. But next day itself the complainant had taken the T.V to the service centre of opposite party. Thereafter the backlight has replaced and found that there is physical damage to the panel of the T.V. So physical damage is out of warranty coverage. The complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary party. Though the opposite party No: 2 demanded to take back the T.V the complainant has not turned for the same and filed this frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No: 2 as alleged in the complaint. The complaint may be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for any reliefs?
- Reliefs and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext A1 to A6 documents marked on his side. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party.
ISSUE NO: 1
The complainant adduced evidence 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 opposite party and he relied on Ext A1 to A6 documents also to substantiate his case. According to him the T.V was handed over for repair of backlight by replacement. Ext A3 issued by opposite party No:2 also stated so. There is no mention about any other defects by the opposite party in Ext A3. So the allegation in the version about the panel board complaint is an afterthought to escape from the liability. The product is under the warranty also. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that after the replacement of the backlight only they could identified the defect of the panel board caused due to external damages, which is not covered under the warranty. So the opposite parties have no liability to repair the panel board complaint under warranty. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties the complainant may be dismissed with cost.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evaluation of the evidence tendered before the Fora we hold that the complaint of the T.V occurred during the warranty period offered by the manufacturer. Ext A3 job sheet clearly stated the said defects as complaint of backlight. It is also mentioned in Ext A3 the said defect is covered under warranty. In Ext A3 nothing mentioned about the complaint of panel board. The opposite party has not produced any piece of evidence or documents to show that there is external damage for the T.V which caused damage to the panel board. No experts were inspected the T.V for proving about the alleged the external damages. According to opposite party there is panel board complaint for the T.V. The opposite party has not proved the said defect was caused due to any external damages. So we are of the view that opposite party No: 2 is liable to repair the said defects under the coverage of warranty, the denial of repair under warranty amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the issue No: 1 found against the opposite parties and answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO: 2&3
As discussed above there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party No: 2 is liable to repair the defect of the T.V at free of cost as the defect covered under the warranty. It is in evident that due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost also to the complainant. Thus the issue No: 2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to repair the T.V at free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as litigation cost also to the complainant within the aforesaid 30 days. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1. Warranty Card
A2.Invoice
A3.A letter dated 16/01/2017
A4.Lawyer Notice
A5 & A6. Postal Acknowledgement
Witness Examined
Pw1. K.Udayakumar.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
