Complaint presented on:  05.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  06.07.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,   MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 06th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.107/2014

 

 

 

P.Thomas Oommen,

Son of Mr.Joy Oommeen,

Aged about 44 years,

No.5/33, Flat No.201,

13th Avenue, Harrington Road,

Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant 

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.,

Represented By Its. Chairman,

Fort House, Second Floor,

No: 221, 2nd Road, Fort,

Mumbai 400 001.

 

2.M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.,

Represented by its. Managing Director, 

(Marketing, Service, and Supply)

No:296, Udyog Vihar,

Phase II, Gurgoan, Haryana.

 

 

 

3. M/s. Next Retailing India Ltd., 

Ground Floor,

Techweb Centre,

New Link Road,

Behram Bagh,

Joheshwari West,

Mumbai – 400 102.

 

4. M/s. Next Retailing India Limited,

Represented by its Regional Head,

Nelson Manickam Road,

Amminjikarai Branch,

Chennai – 600 027.

 

                                                                                                              .....Opposite Parties

    

 

     

 

Date of complaint                            : 06.062014

Counsel for Complainant             : M/s. L.Rajasekar, R.Thirunavukkarsu

    S.Kamaraj

 

Counsel for 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties    : S.Saravanan

 

Counsel for 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties     :    Ex- Parte    

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the TV a sum of Rs.22,600/- and also a sum of Rs.931/- collected towards extending warranty and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The first and 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturers of the Videocon TV. The manufactures issued warranty and subsequently extended warranty for two years dated 08.09.2011 issued by the 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties officials. The extended warranty is valid till 07.09.2014.

2. During October 2012 the TV went blank and the Complainant contacted the call centre of the manufactures and they rejected the Complaint No.63813 dated 13.10.2012.  The service personnel of the manufactures visited the Complainant premises examined the TV and reported that the panel is not operative and orally they said that they would replace the panel. After such visits no one turned up and the efforts made by the Complainant went in vain. During January 2013 there was a discussion with the Complainant by the service personnel for the replacement of the TV on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party. The said discussion was not materialized and the Complainant holding the TV as the show piece in his room for the last 15 months. Till the filing of the Complainant, the service personnel of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 were evading his calls. The Complainant approached the 3rd & 4th Opposite Party and their show room was also closed. Thereafter the Complainant sent legal notice and the same was acknowledged by the 1st Opposite Party and the legal notice sent to others was returned. The TV is not having  manufacturing defect and inspite of extended warranty the Opposite Parties failed to replace the TV is deficiency on their part. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the cost of the TV for a sum of Rs.22,600/- and also a sum o f Rs.931/- collected towards extending warranty and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

3. The 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties remained Ex-Parte.

4.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st & 2nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The Complainant purchased a VIDEOCON LCD TV 32” colour T.V on 08.09.2011. Even as per the above referred fact the warranty period of the T.V is one year from the date of purchase. Hence the warranty period expires on 07.09.2012. The 1st & 2nd Opposite Party deny the allegation mentioned in para No.4 of the Complaint. The extended warranty is not issued by the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties. It was issued only by the 3rd and 4th Opposite Parties. Hence it will in no way bind on the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are manufacturers. They issued one year warranty along with the purchase of the product. The 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties to improve their business would have issued extended warranty card for a valuable consideration. The 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties are not parties to the extended warranty agreement entered between the 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties and the Complainant. Hence it is not at all binding on them. The Complainant never made any call to these Opposite Parties within the warranty period and admittedly the Complainant made call only  on 13.10.2012 after expiry of the warranty issued by them and therefore these Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

 

6. POINT NO :1

Admittedly the Complainant purchased Videocon LCD TV 32” for valuable consideration of Rs.22,600/- under Ex.A1 bill and the said TV was manufactured by the 1 & 2 Opposite Parties and warranty was given by the manufactures for a period of one year and the 3rd and 4th Opposite Parties after collecting a sum of Rs.931/- as  per bill No.77039 dated 08.09.2011 issued  Ex.A2  extended warranty card for a period from 07.09.2012 to 07.09.2014.

7. The case of the Complainant is that during October 2012 the TV screen went  blank and he contacted the call centre of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and registered a Complaint No.60813 dated 13.10.2012 and thereafter their service personnel visited the Complaint premises and after examining they reported that TV panel is not operative and orally under took that  they would replace the panel and however, neither they replaced the panel  nor rectified the TV  in a working condition and the 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties also closed their shop and the TV is not working for more than 15 months and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

8. The fault alleged by the Complainant was on October 2012 after expiry of warranty issued by Opposite Parties 1&2 and the defect actually arose during the extended warranty period only issued by the 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties and therefore they were only liable and hence prays to dismiss the Complaint against them.

9. The Complainant purchased the TV on 08.09.2011 and the warranty given by the manufactures expires on 07.09.2011. The 3rd & 4th Opposite Party issued extended warranty under Ex.A2 for the period from 07.09.2012 to 07.09.2014 in their documents. Nowhere in Ex.A2 extended warranty implicates the manufactures or issued the extended warranty with the consent of the manufactures. Therefore as contended by the manufactures Opposite Parties 3 & 4 only after collecting a sum of Rs.931/- issued the extended warranty as said above.  

10. The Complainant categorically stated in his Complaint as well as in his proof affidavit that he made Complaint No.60813 dated 13.10.2012 to the call centre of the 1 & 2 Opposite Parties and the service personnel attached with them visited the Complainant house and after examining the TV they   informed that the TV panel is not operative and orally informed they would replace the panel. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 would deny in the written version and proof affidavit that they never promised   to replace the TV set and in respect other facts they have not denied. Therefore we conclude that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 personnel visited the Complainant house and examined his TV and also said that they would replace the panel is accepted. Further, such service personnel of the manufactures visited only during the extended period of the warranty issued by the 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties. Therefore, such action of the 1st & 2nd  Opposite Parties sending a service personnel even after expiry of the one year  warranty period and during the extended  warranty period leads to the conclusion that the dealer for their TV’s i.e  3rd & 4th   Opposite Parties issued extended warranty only with the consent of the manufactures. Therefore failure to replace the panel or TV as assured by the service personnel of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2   is deficiency on the part  all the Opposite Parties and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 have committed deficiency in service.

 

 

 

11. POINT NO:2

We held above that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 have committed deficiency in service and hence they are liable to refund the cost of the product as well as the amount collected towards extending warranty in all amounting to Rs.23,531/- to the Complainant.  Due to deficiency in service the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate  to order a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation to the Complainant towards mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 jointly or severally  are  ordered to refund a sum of Rs.23,531/- (Rupees  twenty three  thousand five hundred and thirty one  only) towards the cost of the LCD TV and  the amount collected towards the extended warranty  and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06th  day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – II PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.09.2011 Bll.No.77040 LCD – TV vide 32”

Ex.A2 dated 08.09.2011 Bill for extended warranty for LCD TV

Ex.A3 dated 13.06.2013 Legal Notice issued to 1 to 3 Opposite Parties 

Ex.A4 dated 19.06.2013 Acknowledgement card of the 1st Opposite Party 

Ex.A5 dated 24.06.2013 Return cover of the 3rd Opposite Party 

Ex.A6 dated 19.03.2014 Legal Notice to the 1st Opposite Party to 4th 

                                                    Opposite Parties 

 

Ex.A7 dated NIL Acknowledgement card of the 1st Opposite Party 

Ex.A8 dated 23.03.2014 Return cover from the third Opposite Party 

Ex.A9 dated 24.03.2014 Return cover from the 4th Opposite Party 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

……. NIL …….

 

 

 

MEMBER – II PRESIDENT