Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/60/2019

Sri Vasu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.Jairaj and associates

23 Jul 2019

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:14.01.2019

Disposed On:23.07.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

    DATED THIS THE 23^rd JULY OF 2019

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

                          

 

                      

CC No.60/2019

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT

Sri.Vasu, S/o Ramu, Aged about 44 years, Residing at No.20, 12th Cross, 1st Main, Govindareddy Layout, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore -76.   Advocate – Naganandini S       V/s

OPPOSITE PARTies

1) Reliance Retail Ltd., Sy. No.75/B, Hulimavu, Bannerghatta Road, (Opposite to Meenakshi Mall) Bangalore – 560 076.   Rep. by its Branch Manager.   2) Reliance Retail Limited., 3rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002.   Rep. by its General Manager.   3) Reliance Retail Limited., 62/2, RIL Building, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560025.   Rep. by its Branch Manager.   Ex-parte

                                       

 

ORDER

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,639/- and Rs.26,685/- totally amounting to Rs.1,77,324/- along with interest @ 18% from 15.08.2016 till realization, to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-, to pay cost and to pass such other reliefs.                  

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

 

Complainant purchased a LYF LED TV bearing model No.Lyf Uhd Smart Led TV lyu6501S from OP-1 dated 14.08.2016 vide invoice No.C#60154738 by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,639-01.  The same was delivered to the complainant under delivery note bearing No.7003594557 dated 15.08.2016.

 

The complainant submitted that, from the day of purchase of the above said TV it was not working an expected manner and condition and picture quality also not upto the mark.  In the month of August 2017 the problem arise in the mother board.  The complainant complained about the same to the authorized service center i.e., OP-2.  OP-2 was replaced the mother board on 05.09.2017.  The complainant further submitted that, OP-2 visited the complainant’s residence and forced the complainant to take a warranty of another two years i.e., 13.08.2018 to 14.08.2020 by paying amount of Rs.26,685/-.  Accordingly the complainant taken further warranty by paying an amount of Rs.26,685/- on 12.09.2017.  The complainant further submitted that, the above said TV was delivered from godon and the warranty card was delivered along with TV.  The duty of OP-1 employee to come and fix the TV and fill up the warranty card and get it signed and sealed from OP-1 and give it back to the customer but the OP-1 employee has failed to perform in his duties.  The complainant further submitted that as per the warranty card there was two years warranty.  In May 2018 again power supply problem in the said TV, when the same was complained to OP-1 they notified the defect in the circuit board and further replaced the circuit board on 14.05.2018.  Again on 13.06.2018 when the complainant switch on the TV, the TV does not switch on and the complainant complained the same to OP-2.  OP-2 technician who visited the complainant house and informed the complainant that there is a defect in the mother board and it should be replaced.  When the complainant questioned the same the mother board was replaced only on 05.09.2017, the technician OP-2 was not able to clarify the complainant.  As the problem in the mother board was continuously repeating, the complainant contacted the Manager of stores and requested to replace the TV or give back the entire amount and also the amount paid for extended warranty.  The Manager informed the complainant that there is a warranty for replacement of the board even though there is a warranty.  The complainant further submitted that the OPs have assured the complainant that TV will be defect free and it would last long with no or minimum trouble.  The above said TV is substandard and pure quality with repeated problems and hence the complainant is very much upset.  Complainant further submitted that the OP Company has stopped manufacturing the above said TV and the OP even stopped the sale of the TV which was already manufactured as there were several complaints regarding the mother board.  Hence it is not worth either to get repair or to take replacement of the T.V.  Hence having no alternative the complainant got issued legal notice dated 13.08.2018 to the OPs.2 & 3 and OP-1 on 11.12.2018.  OPs neither replied nor complying as per the legal notice.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint.  

 

3. After service of the notice from the Office, the OPs did not appear before this Forum and hence, they called out as absent and have been placed exparte.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant has filed his affidavit reproducing what he has stated in his respective complaint. The Complainant has filed written arguments and produced the documents which were marked. We have heard the arguments and gone through the oral and documentary evidence scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

 

 

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for?

 

2.  What order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the affirmative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

7. Point No.1: The Complainant firmly stated oath in his affidavit that, the Complainant purchased a LYF LED TV bearing model No.LYF Uhd Smart Led TV lyu6501S from OP-1 dated 14.08.2016 vide invoice No.C#60154738 by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,639-01.  The same was delivered to the complainant under delivery note bearing No.7003594557 dated 15.08.2016.  The said TV having two years warranty.  The complainant alleged that the said TV started giving problem from August 2017.  The OP service technician visited the place and replaced the mother board on 05.09.2017.  On May 2018 again the problem started.  The OP-2 noticed the defect in the circuit board and further replaced the circuit board on 14.05.2018.  Again on 13.06.2018 when the complainant switch on the TV, the TV does not switch on.  Same was complained to the OP-2.  OP-2 technician visited the place and informed that there is a problem in the mother board.  The complainant alleged that as the problem in the mother board was continuously repeating hence the complainant requested OPs to replace the TV or to give back the entire amount.  Since the said TV is covered under warranty.  But the OPs have failed to do so.  Hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  To substantiate this contention, the Complainant has produced the documents.

 

8. On careful scrutiny of the documents as per Ex-A1 the complainant has purchased the LYF LED TV bearing model No.LYF Uhd Smart Led TV lyu6501S from OP-1 shop dated 14.08.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,639-01.  The same was delivered to the complaiannt on 15.08.2016 as per Ex.A-2.  Further on perusal of Ex-A4 warranty clause it reads here as under:

 

“The product is guaranteed to be free from defects in workmanship and parts for a period of 24 months on product from the date of purchase.  Defects that occur within this warranty period, under normal use and care will be repaired, replaced or refunded at our discretion, solely are our option with no charge for parts or labour.  The benefits conferred by this warranty are in addition to all rights to and remedies in respect of the product that the consumer has under the Trade practices Act and similar state and territory laws”.

 

 

9. Further on perusal of Ex.A-5 email dated 08.07.2017 it reads as hereunder:

 

Dear Vasu,

 

Greeting from Reliance Digital.

 

This communication is being made with regards to your LYF 65 UHD SMART LED TV as billed on 15.08.2016.

 

To address the issue related to your product, our service team has inspected your product and as per their inspection part needs to be change to make it functional and required part is also available.

 

Your product is in out of replacement warranty and hence, we regret to inform you that we cannot process replacement of the product.  Your product is under repair warranty and we can repair your product and make it functional for regular use.

 

Please revert with your acceptance for the repair and revert with your appointment to arrange service team to inspect your product.

 

We await your response to resolve this case further.

 

We would appreciate your understanding and co-operation.

 

10. Admittedly complainant purchased the above said TV on 15.08.2016.  As per email dated 08.07.2018 it is evident that the above said TV is having problem and the complainant had complained within two years from the date of purchase.  Hence the above said TV is covered under the warranty.  It is bounden duty of the OP to rectify the defect without charging/collecting any amount or service charges from the complainant.

 

11. Further the evidence of the Complainant remained unchallenged. Even after filing of the complaint, the OPs remained absent though the notice served. If at all the OPs have rebutted their claim, the same could have been considered. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the only alternative left is to accept the contention of the Complainant.  Non-appearance and non-filing of the version amounts to admission in the light of decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg, wherein it is held that,

 

“Non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint”.

 

12. Hence, viewed from any angle as per the records, it clearly evident that, the above said TV is having problem and it is also covered under warranty.  Hence it is just and proper to direct the OP to repair the said TV to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the order, failing which OPs are directed to return the cost of the TV along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.  

 

13. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.  

 

2. OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to repair the TV of the complainant to his satisfaction within 30 days from the receipt of the order, failing which OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the TV i.e., Rs.1,50,639/- to the Complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.

 

3. Further OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 23^rd day of July 2019)

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Vasu, who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of bill
Ex-A2	Copy of delivery note.
Ex-A3	Copy of the bill.
Ex-A4	Copy of the warranty card
Ex-A5	Copy of email correspondence.
Ex-A6	Copy of the legal notice (two nos.)
Ex-A7	Copy of the RPAD receipts (3 nos.)
Ex-A8	Copy of the acknowledgments (3 nos.)
Ex-A9	Copy of the photos.

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT