IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday, the 31^st    day of May, 2017.

Filed on 29-04-2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

C.C.No.154/2016

between

Complainants:-                                                 Opposite parties:-

Sri. D. Ramesh                                                      1.       M/s. Toshiba India Pvt.Ltd

Karthika House

Kizhakkenada                                                                  3^rd Floor, Building No.10B

Chenganoor.                                                                   Cylinder City,689 121

                                                                                      Gurgaon-122 002.

                                                                                 (By Adv. T.G.Sanalkumar)

                                                                             2.       M/s. Atttinkara Electronics

                                                                                      M.C.Road,

                                                                                            Chenganoor 689 121

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER  (MEMBER         

The complainant case in precise is as follows:

The complainant on 11^th May 2013 purchased an LED TV for an amount of Rs.19,500/-(Nineteen thousand five hundred) from the opposite parties.  The complainant so purchased the said TV on the opposite parties’ assurance as to the gadget’s perfection and its three year warranty.  Notwithstanding the tempting assurance and allurements by the opposite parties, in February 2015, the display of the TV went damaged.  The complainant intimated the said aspect to the opposite parties forthwith.  Consequently, the service engineers of the opposite parties inspected the material TV, took its photograph, and assured prompt patch up free of cost, as the warranty was still in operation.  The complainant was made to wait for months, yet the defect of the TV was not rectified.  The complainant contacted the opposite parties’ service centre.  At this point the opposite parties impressed upon the complainant that the complainant purchased the TV in 2013 May, and only the TVs purchased in 2013 June hold three years warranty.  According to them the panel of the TV went spoiled, and to get it revamped an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand) was to be expended by the complainant.  The opposite parties willfully defrauded the complainant.  The complainant sustained financial loss as well as mental agony.  Got aggrieved on this the opposite parties approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

2.       On notices being served the opposite parties turned up and filed separate version.  The crux of the contentions of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties’ liability lies only in line with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided to the material TV.  According to the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the gadget in question getting satisfied with the appearance and performance of the same.  At the time of the said purchase, the material TV was holding warranty for a period of 2 years.  However the complainant has not made it a point to secure ‘extended warranty’ for the gadget from the opposite parties.  The complainant approached the opposite parties with his grievance long after the warranty period got expired.  As such the claim raise by the complainant is absolutely fall outside the scope of any warranty benefit.  According to the 2^nd opposite party in any event it is found that the complainant’s claim falls within warranty period the 1^st opposite party alone is liable for the same, the 2^nd opposite party fervently contends.  According to the first opposite party the complaint is vexatious and frivolous, and is only to be dismissed with cost.

3.       The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Ext.A1 and A2 were marked.  No Oral or documentary evidence adduced from the part of opposite party.

          Taking into account the complainant’s contention the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-

          a) Whether the material TV the complainant purchased from the opposite

               parties holds three year warrantee?

          b) Whether the complainant approached the opposite parties within the

               period of warranty with the complaint of the material TV’s defect?

c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4.       The complainant case is that the complainant on 11^th May 2013 purchased an LED TV from the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.19,500/-(Nineteen thousand five hundred).  Thereafter in 2015 February the display of the TV turned defective, and the complainant approached the opposite party, and impressed upon them regarding malfunctioning of the material gadget.  The opposite parties caused the complainant wait for several months by handing out diverse assurances from time to time.  Ultimately the opposite parties disowned the complainant’s claim on the ground that the complainant’s demand of getting the TV patched up stands beyond the scope of warranty terms and conditions.  We meticulously examined the materials placed before us by the parties.  Concededly the complainant purchased the TV from the opposite parties, and the same turned defective.  Now the question that remains to be looked into is whether the imperfection of the TV came about within the warranty period.  To put it in otherwise, if the warranty was in operation when the material gadget grew defective.  On a perusal of the materials available on record before us, it is revealed that the TV turned defective during the warranty time.  The complainant so many occasions approached the opposite parties to get the gadget patched up.  Notwithstanding the complainant’s requests and demand thereafter, the opposite parties only caused the complainant run from pillar to post and ultimately in the end refused to rectify the defect of the material TV.   Needless to say we are of the strong view that the complainant’s case merits acceptance.  It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is deficient.  We need hardly say, the complainant is entitled to relief.

5.       In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above the opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the material TV to perfection free of cost failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant the cost of the material TV after deducting 40% of its actual cost viz Rs.19,500/-(Nineteen thousand five hundred) by way of depreciation.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand) as compensation and an amount of Rs.1000/-(One thousand) as cost.  The opposite party shall comply with the order of this court within 30 days of receipt of this order.

          In the result complaint is allowed accordingly.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of May, 2017.

                                                                   Sd/-   Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member

                                                                       Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)

                                                                Sd/-        Smt. Jasmine D (Member

Appendix

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1            -        D.Ramesh

Ext.A1         -        Retail invoice dtd 11/5/2013

Ext.A2         -        Warranty Card

Evidence of the opposite party:

Nil

//True Copy//

By Order

Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite party/S.F