IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 8^th   day of June, 2020.

              Present:    Sri. Manulal.V.S, President

                                           Smt..Bindhu.R,  Member

                                       Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

CC No. 230/18(Filed on 29/10/18)

Complainant                             :  Catherine,

                                                             W/o Jyothi V.Abraham,

                                                              Valanjar House,

                                                              Parampuzha PO,

                                                              Kottayam.

                                                           (Adv. Francis Thomas)

                                                          Vs

Opposite parties                                 :  1) Reliance Retail Ltd.,

                                                                 Reliance Digital,

                                                                 Nabeeza Shopping Complex,

                                                                   S.H.Mount PO, Kottayam repted

                                                                 by its Manager.

                                                             2) The Manager,

                                                                  Reliance Retail Ltd.,

                                                                  Reliance Digital,

                                                                     Nabeesa Shopping Complex, S.H

                                                                 Mount PO, Kottayam.

                                                         ( Adv.OP 1&2 KarthikS.Nair)

                                                             3) Reliance Retail Ltd.,

                                                                 HGFBCA03, Block B, Bldg 4,

                                                                 Reliance Corporation Park,

                                                                  Ghamsoli-Thane-4000701, Repted

                                                              by its Manager.

O R D E R

Smt..Bindhu.R,  (Member)

The complaint in a nutshell is as follows:

The complainant purchased a reconnect-48 FHD LEDTV – RELEG 4801 on 31.05.16 from the 1^st opposite party.  The said TV had a warranty of 24 months from the date of purchase and in addition to that an additional warranty also.  As per the warranty, the product is guaranteed to be free from defects in workmanship and parts for the guarantee period.   After two years of use, the panel Board of the TV became defective.  This was reported to the first opposite party on time and demanded repair or replacement of the TV as per  the warranty condition.  Even though the complainant approached the opposite parties several times no service was provided.   The said TV had an extended warranty for two years and the complainant is entitled for getting the TV repaired or replaced with a new one.  The complainant had to purchase another TV which caused mental agony and hardships and hence the complainant is entitled to be compensated. Hence this case is filed.

On receiving notice from this forum, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared and filed their version jointly.  The 3^rd opposite party did not appear.  3^rd opposite party was declared exparte.

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in their version contested the complaint as the claim for the extended warranty is not correct.  The complainant had already used the TV for more than 2 years.  That itself shows that the product was not defective. The complaint does not contain vital and material facts like the date on which the said T.V is alleged to have become defunct, the date or dates on which the information regarding the defunct TV was passed on to the opposite parties etc.  The allegation that no steps were taken by the opposite party for the redressal of the complaint is wrong.  A service technician went to attend to the issue and inspected the TV.  However, the service technician could not repair the TV as the parts that are required for the repair needed to be ordered and obtained from the manufacturer ((Dickson Technologies Ltd.)The spare parts needed to be provided by the manufacturer of the TV and the service center will use the spare  parts provided. Manufacturer informed the service centre that the concerned model of

TV was no longer produced and therefore its spare parts are also not available.   Without the spare parts being provided by the manufacturer, the service centre cannot repair the TV.   The fact was informed to the complainant also.  Thus the TV could not be repaired for reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties. It was also intimated to the complainant that as  per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty that was availed by the complainant, if the product is not repairable, then a depreciated value of the product may be accepted by the customer and that the opposite party was willing to offer the same.   It is beyond their capacity to resolve the grievance of the complainant.   The complainant has not produced the extended warranty document and has suppressed the terms and conditions sheet of the same with malicious intentions.   Therefore the complainant has approached the forum without clean hands and as an experiment to abuse the process of law.   The complainant has not obtained extended warranty for the TV as averred in the complaint.    Even if so, the terms and conditions of the extended warranty scheme, is applicable as above said.   All the averments regarding the mental agony of the complainant due to the purchase of a new TV etc. are false. The complaint lacks bona fides.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with 2 documents whereas the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.

On perusal of the facts and evidences of the case, we are of the opinion to frame the following points.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for cost and compensation?
3. Relifs?

Point no.1

The complainant’s allegation is that the TV purchased by her from the 1^st opposite party had got damaged after 2 years and the opposite parties did not turn up for resolving the complaint even though the TV had extended warranty.  So the complainant had to purchase a new TV.   The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties who are the service centres averred in the version that the complainant should act according to the agreement for extended warranty.  They were ready to perform according to the terms of the extended warranty which was not accepted by the complainant.

Here, the complainant alleges that the TV had extended warranty but no document to show that warranty has been produced before this forum. Still, as the opposite parties admits that the TV had an extended warranty, we assume that the TV had extended warranty the terms and conditions of which are not known to this forum.   Though the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties claim that they provided service to the complainant and as they didn’t get the spare parts from the manufacturer they couldn’t replace the damaged part, the opposite parties did not produce any kind of evidence to prove their willingness to repair the TV.   No document has produced to show that they had made a requirement of the specific part of the TV to the manufacturer.   So we assume that the opposite party has not taken proper care and caution to provide accurate service to the complainant.  This can be seen as a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, the 1&2^nd opposite parties admit that the parts of the TV are not available so the defect cannot be cured.   The complainant produced the bill of purchase of the TV as Exts. A1 which shows the value of the TV is Rs.36,990/- only.  All other amounts incurred are for accessories and extended warranty.  Hence the complainant is entitled only for the exact price.  Point no 1 is found accordingly.

For the sake of convenience point No.2 & 3 are considered together.

Point no 2&3

On other hand, the complainant though alleges that her TV had extended warranty, has not produced any evidence to show that.   Moreover, the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that she had made proper complaint to the opposite parties to which they did not answer.  So the complainant is not entitled for the entire reliefs sought.

Thus in the light of above discussion, we pass the following order;

The complaint is allowed  and as the appearing opposite parties admit that the model RECONNECT-48 FHD LED TV-RELEG 4801 has been stopped.

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 44,152.50/-  to the complainant .
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.

The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8^th  day of June, 2020.

          Smt..Bindhu.R,  Member                 Sd/-

Sri. Manulal.V.S, President             Sd/-

          Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant.

A1-Bill dated 31/5/16 for Rs.44,152.50/-

A2-Warranty details.

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.