IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
-
C C No. 58/2019 (filed on 30-04-2019)
Petitioner : Bijimol R.
W/o. Manojkumar K.
Mayyarappallil House,
South Pambady P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. Manish Jose)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) The Manager,
QRS Retail Limited No.XIV/IA
Vijayapuram Panchayat,
Near Kanjikuzhy Bridge,
Kottayam – 686 001.
(Adv. Benny Chierian and
Adv. Sophy Punnoose)
2) The Manager,
QRS Retail Limited,
25/2424 Raymond Building, II Floor, M.G. Road,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695001.
(Adv. N. Gopalakrishnan)
3) The Manager,
Panasonic India Pvt. Limited,
12th Floor, Ambience Tower,
Ambience Island, NH8,
Gurgaon – 122 002, Haryana.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a LED Television manufactured by the 3rd opposite party from the 1st opposite party on 22-04-2018 for an amount of Rs.37,000/-. The Television was delivered to the complainant on 24-04-2018. At the time of purchase, the 1st opposite party had given a warranty card along with the Television. It is averred in the complaint that when the complainant perused the warranty card, it was revealed that the warranty card did not mention model number, serial number, date of installation and seal. When the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party assured the complainant that the warranty would be available irrespective of above details. The warranty was for a period of one year from the date of purchase.
The said LED TV became defective and the same was not functioned. The defect was in the form of lines which appeared parallel to the screen and this lines were preventing the proper view of the object on the screen. The complainant informed the defect of the television to the opposite party on 22-12-2018 vide job No.221218544298 and the 1st opposite party deputed technician to inspect the same. The technician inspected the defect in detail and they were unable to rectify the defect. The technicians informed the complainant that the television is physically damaged and such product cannot be considered for warranty and can be repaired on chargable basis. The 1st opposite party estimated an amount of Rs.27,550/- as repair charge and made an offer to the complainant that the complainant should pay discount rate of Rs.17,500/- only as repair cost. The complainant is not amenable for the same because there is no physical damage to the television and complainant is entitled to get the warranty offered by the opposite party.
It is averred in the complaint that the television given to the complainant had inherent manufacturing defect and on account of the same, the complainant has put too much hardship and inconvenience and mental agony and therefore the complainant is to be compensated for unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order for directing the opposite party to replace the defective television or to direct the opposite party to pay the price of the said television along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-
Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed separate version.
The joint version of 1st and 2nd opposite party is as follows.
The Panasonic LED 43 Television (TH-43E460DX) was purchased from the 1st opposite party and is holding one year warranty. The complainant purchased the said Television on 22-04-2018 and at that time said television was in very good condition and complainant was fully satisfied with respect to the performance of the television. The warranty card was properly given to the customer and the 3rd opposite party gives warranty of one year to the said television. It is averred in the version that the complainant was using the television in full satisfaction and has not raised any complaint regarding the performance of the television. A complaint has been registered with the 2nd opposite party on 22-12-2018 and immediately a technician of the 1st opposite party visited the spot and pointed out to the complainant that a foreign object hit the television and thus the complaint occurred. The said defect cannot be claimed on warranty. The estimated cost of repairing and cost of panel is reduced and fixed as Rs.17,500/- which has been agreed by the complainant and she signed the job card.
The television was defect free new one and it was sold to the customer intact on 24-04-2018 and the same was working till 22-12-2018. It is averred in the version that due to the negligent act of the complainant or other members said damage had been caused to the said television, which cannot be covered under the warranty. To the astonishment of the opposite parties, the complainant sent a legal notice on 05-01-2019 raising false allegation. The 3rd opposite party has replied to the notice promptly. On inspection it was understood that the television was physically damaged and there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. The warranty in the television was valid only for manufacturing defect or normal breakdown of the product during the warranty period. The complainant misunderstood the warranty terms. The company will not cover any responsibility for damage or loss arising out of mishandling. The complainant has to pay an amount and get the LED replaced. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the dealers of various companies and after sale service is provided by the company through their authorized service center, the full authority is with the 3rd opposite party.
The crux of the version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a LED TV bearing model No.TH-43E 460 D from the 1st opposite party on 22-04-2018. No consideration whereof was paid to the 3rd opposite party in any manner. It is admitted by the complainant that the television worked till 21-12-2018, which is for almost 8 months from the date of purchase. Immediately after receiving information from the complainant on 22-12-2018, on inspection the panel of the television was found to be damaged due to the external impact. The authorized service center accordingly issued detailed estimate of the cost of the purchase and total repair to the complainant vide letter dtd.26-12-2018. The complainant neither confirmed the said estimate nor gave her approval for repairs knowing well that the user inflicted damages are not covered under the warranty. The warranty of the television is valid only for manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during the warranty period. The complainant appears to have misunderstood warranty which only covers the repair or replacement of any such defect which might occur due to faulty manufacturer or material within the warranty period. The complainant has miserably failed to establish that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect has persisted in the television as neither any Engineers report nor any other convincing material has been produced. The allegation of the manufacturing defect is not to be as gospel truth on mere statement of the complainant but it is required to be proved beyond the doubt by means of credible documentary evidence.
There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is a manufacturer and once a television is manufactured the same is sold to the authorized dealer or retailers. Therefore the dealers or retailers sell those television to their customers according to their independent marketing strategies and the 3rd opposite party has no role to play in the sale. The role of the 3rd opposite party comes into picture only when there is a manufacturing defect in the television if at all. The warranty obligation of the manufacturer is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from any manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty. Any grievance with respect to the selling of the television, deficiency in service unfair trade practice can only be made against dealers / distributors or retailers.
This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant is not a consumer as denied in the Consumer Protection Act.
Evidence of this case consist of deposition of Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A5 documents from the side of the complainant. Vishnu M. Binu, who is the customer care of the 1st and 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for an on behalf of 1st and 2nd opposite party and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. Arjun Dhanwar, the authorized representative of the 3rd opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.B5 to B9 were marked from the side of the 3rd opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
- If so, what are reliefs?
Point No.1
It is contented by the 3rd opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant had purchased an LED TV bearing TH-43E 460D from the 1st opposite party on 22-04-2018. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that the complainant had paid Rs.37,000/- towards the 1st opposite party as the price of the said LED TV. It is admitted by the 3rd opposite party is that the said model of the LED TV was manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties.
Another contention raised by the 3rd opposite party is that the registered office of the 3rd opposite party was situated at Gargaoon, Haryana which was outside the jurisdiction of this Commission. On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that the office of the 1st opposite party is situated at Kanjikuzhi and the 3rd opposite party sold the product to the complainant through their authorized dealer who is the 1st opposite party at Kanjikuzhi, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore we are of the opinion that the cause of action of the compliant was arosed at Kanjikuzhi, which is within the jurisdiction of this Commission and complaint is maintainable.
Point Nos.2 and 3
There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased TH-43E 460 D Televsion on 24-04-2018 which is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.37,000/-. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that on 22-12-2018 they received an information regarding the nonfunctioning of the said LED TV and immediately after the receipt of the said information they sent technicians to inspect the said Television. Pw1 who is the complainant deposed before the Commission that the nonfunctioning of the Television was due to inherent manufacturing defect of the same. On the other hand it is contented by the opposite party that the defect caused to the TV was due to the hit of foreign object on the television thereby caused the breakage of LED panel of the TV. According to the opposite parties after receiving information they created a job sheet and the same is produced before this Commission and is marked as Ext.B3. On perusal of Ext.B3 we can see that it was recorded that a detected as defect panel broken. An amount of Rs.27,550/- was estimated as cost of repairing. It is further recorded in Ext.B3 a discounted amount as Rs.17,500/-. Ext.B3 was created at 4.19 pm on 22-12-2018. Opposite parties contented as per the terms and conditions of Ext.A2 warranty card. The opposite parties are not liable to indemnify the complaint to the loss or damages caused to the product due to the mishandling. Clause 5 of the Ext.A2 warranty card states that warranty take care of any manufacturing defect and breakdown of the product during the warranty period. Thus the opposite party is only responsible for the manufacturing defect or breakdown in a normal course of the product as per the terms and conditions of the Ext.A2 warranty. The complainant did not produce the television before this Commission or not produced any expert evidence to show that the television in dispute was having inherent manufacturing defect. Without any expert evidence to the effect that the product had been suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect we cannot come to a conclusion that the product is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. But it is admitted by both parties that the product is suffering from some defect and product is under the cover of warranty. Though the opposite party contented that the defect is due to the hit by a foreign object on the television, they did not produce any evidence to substantiate their contention to those aspect except Ext.B8. On perusal of Ext.B8 we can see that it is a print out of a photograph; on a close perusal of Ext.B8 we cannot see any breakage of screen or any evidence to show that there was a hit by a foreign object on the television. During the cross examination, pw1 categorically denied any chance of hit by hard object on television or chance of fell down of television. Moreover during the cross examination complainant expresses her readiness and willingness to produce the television before this Commission. But the opposite parties neither insisted nor took any coercive steps to produce the television before this Commission. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the 3rd opposite party offered warranty for one year. It is pertinent to note that the LED TV having cost of Rs.37,000/- is became defective within 8 months from the date of purchase. According to the complainant the defect was in the form of lines, which appeared parallel to the screen and these lines were preventing proper view of the objects on the screen.
On the evaluation of the above evidence we are of the opinion that the LED TV has suffering from some defect. As discussed earlier without any expert evidence we cannot arrive at a conclusion that the said television have inherent manufacturing defect.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are deficient in service by not reparing the television which was under the cover of warranty offered by the 3rd opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of Ext.A2 warranty the 3rd opposite party is bound to rectify the defect of the product during the warranty period. On a thoughtful evaluation of evidence we can see that 3rd opposite party who is a manufacturer of the television refuses the fruitful enjoyment of warranty of the product which was offered by them to the complainant; by stating untenable contentions. We are of the opinion that this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. No doubt the act of the 3rd opposite party amounts to much hardship and mental agony to the complainant and 3rd opposite party is liable to compensate the same. The Consumer Protection Act is a social welfare legislation which intends to protect the consumer interest and rights from the deceptive practice of traders and manufactures. On a thoughtful evaluation of the complaint and evidence we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the 3rd opposite party to give the LED Television made by Panasonic Company with model No.TH-43 E460 D to the complainant in a perfect working condition by rectifying the defects at free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
- We hereby direct the 3rd opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. Failing which compensation award will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of July, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Invoice No.615949 dtd.22-04-18 by 1st opposite party
A2 : Warranty card
A3 series: Lawyers notice (3 nos.)
A4 series : Postal receipts (3 nos.)
A5 series : Postal acknowledgement card (2 nos.)`
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
