IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 225/2018 (filed on 24-10-2018)
Petitioner : Shajimon M.J.
S/o. Jospeh,
Mecherithundathil @
Macharriputhenpura House,
Kurumalloor P.O. Kanakkary village,
Meenachil, Kottayam, Pin – 686632.
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Orange Home Appliances,
Mekkara Building,
Near Private Bus Stand,
Piravam Road,
Koothattukulam – 686662.
Rep. by its Proprietor.
2) Lloyd Service Centre,
Summer Cool Air Condition,
Pullankannappally Building,
Kanakkary P.O. Kanakkary Village,
Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam – 686101.
Rep. by its Proprietor.
3) Lloyd India, QRG Towers,
2D Sector – 126, Expressway,
Uttar Pradesh, Noida – 201304.
Rep. by its Managing Director)
(For Op 2 and 3, Adv. Denu Joseph
and Adv. Neethu Reghukumar)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant bought a 40” inch Led Television of LLOYD FHD for Rs.27,400/- from the first opposite party manufactured by the third opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 3rd opposite party. The television was having 3years warranty. On 28.09.2018 vertical lines started to appear on the display and the complainant informed the 1st opposite party about this. The lines increased day by day and on 1.10.18 the display of the same was turned off. The 1st opposite party registered a complaint with the 3rd opposite party regarding this. On 3.10.18 one service personnel came from the 2nd opposite party and after inspection he informed that it was a board complaint and he took the board of the television to the service centre for repairing and he took it with him.
On 6.10.2018 the service personnel replaced the board of the television but when he turned on the television for checking, it heated up and got turned off in 2 minutes. The board was again taken by him and he informed the complainant that the television was suffering from some serious manufacturing defect and was not sure of repairing the television. If the repair was not possible, they would replace the TV with a new one. But later though the complainant tried to get the opposite parties over phone, nobody was turning up. The complaint of the TV raised by the complainant is within the warranty period. Though the complaint was raised in the warranty period, the opposite parties did not attend the complaint or redress the grievance of the complainant. This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is filed for replacement of the television or return of the amount along with compensation.
Notice was duly served from the Commission to the opposite parties and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties appeared and filed their version. 1st opposite party did not appear or file version and hence was set exparte.
Opposite party 2 and 3 filed a joint version and contented that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposites parties herein as there was no direct interaction between them .The complainant interacted with the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party has received the consideration and delivered the product and hence they are liable for the grievance of the complainant. The averments regarding the complaints of the TV are false and denied. The technician of the 2nd opposite party inspected the TV and found that there occurred a crack in the left bottom corner of the television set. The complaint was received on 2.10.18 after 2 years from the date of purchase which makes it clear that the physical damage to the LED panel was caused due to mishandling/negligence at the complainant himself. The panel crack can very well lead to damage of printed circuit board (PCB) due to over current drain. Here also the PCB was damaged. The technician of the 2nd op intimated the complainant that the subject television set will not be covered under warranty since the same was physically damaged and it can be repaired only on chargeable basis. In the terms and conditions of the warranty it is clearly specified that “breakage of LED screen/plastic parts due to mishandling’ is excluded from warranty under the head “ limitations of warranty”. The complainant requested the technician to replace the PCB on an experimental basis and further informed that he would manage with the same LED television set as it was a minute crack. The technician informed the complainant that the PCB could be changed on chargeable basis and on 6-10-18 he approached the complainant for replacing the PCB but the complainant informed that he does not want any repair but demanded replacement of the old TV with a new one. The said TV set cannot be replaced as it got damaged physically due to the negligence of the complainant. The allegations regarding the manufacturing defect and other transactions are not correct. The opposite parties have never denied service to the complainant but only demanded service charge as per the warranty conditions. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3.
Both the complainant and the opposite parties 2 and 3 field affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The complainant marked Exhibit A1, C1 commission report and C1(a) and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties marked Exhibit B1.
We have given a deep perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record. Thus we frame the issues as whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged and if so what are the reliefs the complainant is
entitled to?
1. The complainant’s case is that the LLOYD LED FHD, 40” inch TV worth Rs.27,400/- purchased from the 1st opposite party became non-functioning due to manufacturing defect after two years within the warranty period whereas the opposite parties 2 and 3 challenged the allegations that the damage of the TV was some physical damage and hence no replacement could be made.
2. The complainant in his proof affidavit has deposed that the averments made by the opposite parties 2 and 3 that the physical damage to the LED panel was caused due to the mishandling of the complainant is false. No photographs were taken by the opposite party’s technician at the time of inspection. The complainant had never requested the technician for the repair of the PCB .The said technician did not approach the complainant for the replacement of the PCB on a chargeable basis. The service personnels never offered any repair to the television.
3. The opposite parties 2 and 3 have raised objections to the commission report and filed a separate objection. The objection is that the report of the
Commissioner is based on mere observation, assumptions and presumptions. No scientific examination done. The Commissioner had noted a minor physical damage and a minor fissure seen internally. The Commissioner reported that the TV was working partially which itself defy the allegation of the complainant that the TV was dead.
4. Now, on perusal of the Expert Commissioner’s report, we see that the commissioner has stated that the television is only partially working. There is a minor fissure on the left bottom corner internally. The display shows vertical lines on the left part of the LED panel on operation partially hiding the picture. This is due to the LED panel complaint. The commissioner has again stated that there is a minor physical damage, a small fissure, over a period of time this can spread and hide the complete picture display and hence damage the LED panel. This fissure may be a manufacturing defect, which was not visible initially.
5. The commissioner has coherently reported that there is a fissure on the TV and it may be a manufacturing defect. The term physical damage is explained as a small fissure and that may be a manufacturing defect.
Though it is shown as a minor physical damage, it is evident from the report that the fissure is seen internally which is a manufacturing defect. The opposite party though has objected this by stating that it was the physical damage caused due to the mishandling of the complainant , has not taken any steps to establish that the damage caused to the TV was only physical damage. Further the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties contended that their technician reported that the TV was damaged due to physical damage leading to PCB damage. But for that also no report is seen produced.
6. The other reason raised by the opposite parties is that as the damage was caused due to physical damage, it was out of warranty conditions. Further the complaint was first registered after 2 years of purchase. The complainant though alleges that the TV has 3years warranty, has not produced the warranty card issued by the opposite parties. Exhibit B1 is a copy of some warranty conditions but without any authority. Just a printout of the conditions without the seal or signature of issuing authority has no evidentiary value.
7. So the contention of the opposite party that the TV has been damaged due to physical damage and could not be covered under the warranty scheme is not sustainable in the absence of cogent evidence. Hence we find that the complainant’s TV has manufacturing defect which has to be compensated by the opposite parties. Admittedly the damage occurred within the warranty period. So we find that there is manufacturing defect to the TV of the complainant.
Hence we allow the complaint and direct the 3rd opposite party to replace
the complainant’s television with a brand new TV of the same price failing which return Rs.27,400/- with an interest @9% p.a. from the date of damage ie.28.09.2018 till realization.
All opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to give Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of September, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Retail invoice dtd.11-02-2016 issued by 1st opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of warranty terms and conditions
Commission Report
C1 – Commission report dtd.29-11-21
By Order
Assistant Registrar
