SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act against OPs seeking to get an order directing OPs to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Fact of the case are that on 07/01/2020 complainant purchased from OP NO.3 an LED TV Model Number TH32F200DX manufactured by 1st OP for a sum of Rs.14,500/- having one year warranty. Complainant alleged that the TV was defective within 6 months and he made many complainants to the OPs. But the OPs informed after inspection that certain parts of the TV became defective and complainant has to bear the cost of parts and total repair charges about Rs.7860/-. Complainant contended that they had further informed that the TV became defective due to misuse of it by the complainant so OPs will not repair it free of cost. Complainant submitted that the TV became damages not due to misuse from his part. According to complainant there is a deficiency I service on the part of Ops and praying Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Notices were served to the Ops but in spite of notices Ops 2 and 3 did not contested the case nor filed any written version and it was proceeded with ex-pare against OPs 2nd and 3. OP1 contested the case and submitted that there is no deficiency on their part and as soon as they received the complaint from the complainant , they inspected the TV and offered to rectify it and complainant has to bear the cost of replacing parts and repair charge because defect happened due to misuse of TV. But complainant refused to bear the expense. OP further stated that the complainant has violated the warranty condition. Further submitted that under the terms of warranty complainant is entitled only for the removal of the defects or change the defective parts and complainant cannot claim for the replacement or the refund of the amount, until and unless it is proved by some expert opinion that the TV is having some manufacturing defect.
Complainant filed his affidavit for evidence and documents. He was examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 and Ext.A2. Ext.A1 is the warranty card and Ext.A2 is repair estimate dated 19/06/2020. Pw1 was cross-examined for the OP. Authorised representative of 1st OP, Mr.Anju Sarma has filed his affidavit for evidence on behalf 1st OP, but not turned up to enter in to the box for giving evidence. From the side of OP 3 documents were marked. Ext.B1 is certified copy of warranty terms and conditions, Ext.B2 I the certified copy of estimate letter and Ext.B3 is certified copy of job sheet.
Here 1st OP as a manufacturer of TV contended that under the terms of warranty complainant is entitled only for the removal of the defects or change of the defective parts and the complainant cannot claim for the replacement or the refund of the amount, until and unless it is proved by some expert opinion that the TV is having some manufacturing defect within the warranty period. Further pleaded that it is only the complainant who refused to bear the cost of replacing pats (panel) and repair charge. So without substantiating his claim that TV in question suffered from any manufacturing defect warranting its replacement or refund of the cost and defect occurred due to misuse of it, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
On other hand complainant stated that the fact that there was manufacturing defect in the TV manufactured by the 1st OP which is evident from the fact that within 6 months the TV did not work and were declared as defective by the OPs themselves which is corroborated by the fact that in Ext.A2 dated 19/06/2020 that “certain parts are found to be defective and need replacement” and the price for parts and labour charges amounts Rs.7860/-.
From the submission made by the complainant and on perusing the record and request from complainant dated 19/06/2020 and from Ext. A2 that there is a panel complaint in the newly purchased TV within 5-6 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect. Here OP failed to prove that the panel of TV became defective due to mishandling by the complainant or damaged resulting from dust, foreign object, fire, water etc as mentioned in condition No.7 of Ext. B1.
From the above facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is evident that TV became defective within the warranty period itself ie just after 5 months of its purchase which caused mental agony to the complainant as well as his family members. So complainant is entitled to get relief.
Here there is no use for ordering to replace the defective TV with a new one because complainant has stated that he had purchased a new TV . So we are inclined to order for the refund of the value of TV purchased by complainant LED TV, Model No.TH32F200DX ie Rs.14500/-. Since OPs 2 and 3 are not contested the case they are also responsible for the mental agony and loss happened to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay total amount of Rs.14,500/- to the complainant and also Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental agony happened to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply the order within one month form the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs.14,500/- carries interest @ 12% per annum from date of complaint till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order by filing execution application against opposite parties 1 to 3 as per provisions describe in Consumer Protection Act 2019. On complying the order by opposite parties, complainant has to return the TV in question to 1st opposite party.
Exts
A1 - Certificate of warranty
A2 - Bill dated 19/06/2020
B1 - certified copy of warranty terms and conditions
B2 - Certified copy of estimate letter
B3 - Certified copy of job sheet.
Pw1 - Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
