D.O.F:04/10/2016
D.O.O:10/01/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.252/2016
Dated this, the 10th day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ramani, aged 55 years
W/o Madhavan.
Uppiramkulam, Perumbala Post, : Complainant
Kalanad (Via), Kasaragod – Pin 671317
(Adv: C. Krishnakumar)
And
1. National Radio Electronics Corporation.
Near New Bus Stand,
Kasaragod – 671121
(Adv: Udayakumar.R)
2. Sharp Business System India Pvt Ltd.
XII/1492-B-B1-B2, Amal Complex, : Opposite Parties
1st Floor, C.P Ummer Road, Kochi – 682035.
(Adv: A. Naveen Shanker)
3. Sharp Business System India Pvt Ltd
3rd Floor, Plot – 9 BITS Towers, Sector 125,
Noida - 201301
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of consumer protection act 1986 (as amended). The facts of the case in brief is that the complainants purchased a Sharp LED TV model No. LC 39 LE155 M and vide serial No. 501 764 815 for Rs. 34,600 /- on 12.8.2015 , from Opposite Party No. 1, and at the time of purchase 3 years warranty was offered for the product and warranty card also was issued to that effect. Thereafter from 01. 7 . 2016 onwards, the LED TV was not working and when contacted Opposite Party No. 1, they registered a complaint in their register and offered that they will attend within 2 days, but failed to keep the promise. The complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 several times and on 31/8/ 2016 Opposite Party No.1 directed the complainant to approach Opposite Party No. 2 and accordingly he contacted Opposite Party No. 2 through telephone and lastly on 05.09. 2016, a technician came to the house of the complainant and attended the complaint. After Inspection the technician informed the complainant that the LED television could not be repaired, since it is having manufactural defects. Therefore the complainant demanded the Opposite Party No.1 to replace the TV and Opposite Party No.1 gave an assurance to the complaint that they will replace the same with a new one within one week, since there was no sufficient stock of the same model LED TV at that time. But Opposite Party No.1 failed to keep up the promise and hence this complaint. The complainant frequently contacted Opposite Party No.1 but they evaded her for one or other reason. The complainant strongly believe that Opposite Parties delivered a substandard product and therefore there is service deficiency on their part.
The complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monetary loss. So the complaint is filed for an order directing Opposite Parties to replace the LED TV with new one or refund of the full price amount of Rs. 34,600 /- along with compensation of Rs.50,000 /- and costs.
The opposite parties entered in appearance and filed written version. As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. Opposite Party No.1 admit the purchase of LED TV by the complainant from them. ।t is also submitted that they are only a dealer of the product. The Opposite Party No.1also submitted that the complainant directly approached Opposite Party No. 2 and the technician of Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 repaired TV and TV was in working condition . lt is also learnt that there after it became defective within sometime . The Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 were ready to replace the backlight of the TV, but the complainant was not ready to repair the same by fixing new backlight. The Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the defects of the TV LED TV . There is no negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 filed the version directly. As per the version of Opposite Party No.2 and 3, the product worked for more than one year perfectly thereafter a complaint was registered and responding to the complaint ,the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 sent authorized service person to attend the complaint. During the visit the technician observed the failure of backlight. This can be due to external cause like voltage cells bike arcing acceptor as such it has to be chargeable. Based on warranty terms but as there was delay in repair Opposite Party No. 2 to 3 confirmed customer that it will be repaired free of cost. But the customer did not allow the OP No. 2 and 3 to repair, demanding replacement of the entire TV. As per the terms and conditions of warranty Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 are ready to repair the defective part. The complainant refused the offer of repair .The demand of complainant for the replacement of the whole LED TV cannot be entertained as per terms and condition of warranty. There is no service deficiency for unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
An Expert Commission was appointed to examine the LED TV and report, as per the order in IANo. 139/2018, filed by the complainant. The commissioner filed a report which was remitted back, as per the order in IA No. 236/19 for certain clarification. There after the Commissioner filed a fresh report dated 17.09 2019.
In this case no oral evidence is adduced by the complainant but marked documents as Ext. A 1 and Ext. A 2 and Ext. C - 1. The Ext - A1 is the Invoice for Rs.34,600/- dated 12.08. 2015 issued by the Opposite Party No.1, Ext. A 2 is the Warranty Card of the Sharp LED TV issued by the Opposite Party No .1 to the complainant. The report dated 17.09.2019 of the expert commissioner is marked as Ext.C1.
From the side of Opposite Parties, no evidence is adduced inspite of several adjournments are given for that.
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties in this case the following issues are
framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the LED TV by the complainant from the Opposite Parties.
The documents Ext. A1 and A2 the invoice and the warranty card issued by the Opposite Party No.1 also prove that aspect. The complainant’s case is that the above LED TV became defective and she caused to register a complaint on that and there after a technician of the Opposite Party.No.2 and 3 attended the complaint. The complainant states that after examining the TV, the above said technician of the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 informed the complainant that the TV could not be repaired since it has some manufactural defects. The complainant also states that in that circumstance, the Opposite Party No.1 had promised her to replace the above LED TV with a new LED TV.
The Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 sent authorized service person to attend the complaint. During the visit the technician observed the failure of backlight. This can be due to external cause like voltage cells bike arcing acceptor as such it has to be chargeable . Based on warranty terms but as there was delay in repair Opposite Party No. 2 to 3 confirmed customer that it will be repaired free of cost. But the customer did not allow the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to repair, demanding replacement of the entire TV.
The complainant took steps to obtain an expert opinion regarding the manufactural defects of the LED TV. The expert commission appointed as per the order in IA No. 139/2018 filed a report which was remitted back as per the order in IA No. 236/19 for certain clarification.
There after the Commissioner filed a fresh report dated 17.09 2019. The report says that “ on my opinion , it is found that the Television is not in a working condition and the reason may be the faulty TV display (front) panel or faulty circuit board “ and that
“ either or both the circuit board or display panel is damaged and the television is not in a working condition.”
So as per the report the expert doesn’t opine anything regarding the manufacturing defect.
It is also pertinent to note that the expert didn’t opine that the non working of the LED TV is not due to any manufactural defects.
The complainant strongly believe that Opposite Parties delivered a substandard product which has manufactured defect and therefore there is service deficiency on their part. The argument of the Opposite Parties in this regard is that during the visit the technician observed the failure of backlight. This can be due to external cause like voltage cells bike arcing acceptor as such it has to be chargeable. But the Opposite Parties didn’t adduce any evidence to to prove their case and to disprove the averments of the complainant. The document Ext A2 the warranty Card issued by the OPs at the time of the purchase would show that the LED TV has 2+1 =3 years warranty. The LED TV became defective within the warranty period. Even though the Expert commissioner is silent on the manufactural defects in her report, it cannot be held that the defects of the LED TV are not manufactural defects.
lt has come in evidence that the reason of the non working of TV, " may be the faulty TV display (front) panel or faulty circuit board “ and “ either or both the circuit board or
display panel is damaged and the television is not in a working condition.” and also , "the failure of backlight. "
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence this commission is of the view that the LED TV has some manufactural defects and Opposite Parties are liable to replace the LED TV as per the Warranty Card. The Opposite Parties are also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the Sharp LED TV model No. LC 39 LE155 M and vide serial No. 501 764 815 with the same brand new LED TV or, to refund the entire the price amount of Rs.34,600/- to the complainant . The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs.
Time for compliance is 30 Days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Warranty card
C1- Commission Report
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
