IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of November, 2015
Filed on 14.05.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.148/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Joe Thomas 1. Pioneer Electronics
S/o Thomas LG Servicing Centre
Valiya Veedan Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha – 9
Poonthoppu Ward
Avalookkunnu P.O. 2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Alappuzha – 6 A – Wing, Third Floor
D-3, District Centre, Saket
New Delhi – 110 017
(By Adv. A.K. Jayasree)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 14.02.2011 the complainant’s friend purchased a LG TV for an amount of Rs.58,500/- manufactured by the second opposite party and gifted to the complainant. The complainant availed an Annual Maintenance Contract with the opposite party for a period of 4 years staring from 19.7.2012 and ending on 18.7.2016. During the period of AMC the TV became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party to rectify the defect, but the opposite party has not rectified the defect so far. On enquiry the opposite parties intimated that the spare parts are not available and the defect can’t be rectified. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties, they appeared before the Forum, but did not file any version and also absent for the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, opposite parties 1 and 2 were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant availed an AMC for LG T.V. from the second opposite party for a period of 4 years commencing from 19.7.2012 and ending on 18.7.2016. During the said period the TV became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party for rectifying the defect, but the opposite party failed to rectify the defect stating the spare are not available. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the TV and also the amount remitted for AMC along with compensation and costs. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the Annual Maintenance Contract dated 19.7.2012, Ext.A2 is the job sheet and Ext.A3 is the retail invoice dated 14.2.2011. The documents produced would show that the TV purchased on 14.2.2011 for an amount of Rs.58,500/-. The AMC was taken for the product on 19.7.2012 for a period of 4 years and when the AMC was live, the TV became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party for rectifying the defect. According to the complainant, the TV has not been repaired and returned so far. Opposite parties could not rectify the defect because the spare parts are not available and therefore the complainant could not use the TV. Admittedly the defect arose after the warranty period and no manufacturing defect can be presumed. So we can’t direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the TV as prayed by the complainant. The TV was purchased on 14.2.2011 and the complainant used the TV for about 4 years. Therefore we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get an amount after deducting 30% depreciation. Further the complainant took AMC for a period of 4 years by paying an amount of Rs.17,384/- for rectifying the defect of the product in case of any defect. The alleged defect occurred 2 years after commencement of the AMC, since the spare parts are not available the opposite party could not rectify the defect of the TV. So the purpose of the AMC was not served. But the complainant already enjoyed the coverage of AMC for 2 years. The period of AMC ends on 2016. On 12.6.2015 when the AMC was live, the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting it repaired, the same can’t be repaired. So the complainant is entitled to get half of the amount paid for AMC. Since the service was not provided to him. Since the opposite parties failed to provide the assured service, they have committed deficiency in service. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.40, 950/- (Rupees forty thousand nine hundred and fifty only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to refund half of the AMC charge Rs.8,692/- to the complainant. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to him and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.40,950/-, Rs.8,692/- will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Annual Maintenance Contract dated 19.7.2012
Ext.A2 - Job sheet
Ext.A3 - Retail invoice dated 14.2.2011
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
