BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.258/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 20^th August 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to replace the defective LED TV or to pay the value of the LED TV along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 22.09.2013 till payment and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, hardship, inconvenience with cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs.
2.     The Sharp LED TV purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.2 had developed problems on its display screen, after the lapse of one year of its purchase.  On repeated complaints, the opposite party service technician attempted to rectify the defects, but failed.  The defective TV was delivered to opposite party through courier on 27.06.2016.  The opposite parties failed to rectify the defects.  A legal notice was caused on 09.03.2017 was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     Opposite party No.1 submits version by post and admits the sale of Sharp LED TV on 22.09.2013 and the warranty for one year from the date of purchase.  On receipt of complaint, on 16.12.2015, the service executive visited complainant’s residence a not found any defects in TV.  Again on 06.05.2015, suspecting the panel, suggested to send the TV to Bangalore through their authorised service center at Mysore.  The TV was received in damaged condition and informed the same to complainant and the rectification is done on chargeable basis.  The TV was used without any complaint for more than two years.  As such, the allegation of manufacturing defects is denied.  The complainant was offered a discount for replacement of panel/repairs or offered exchange at 50% discount value.  Therefore, the allegations are denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The opposite party No.2 submits that, they were not aware of the deputation and inspection of service technician who attended the complaint relating to defects in TV.  The complainant has been filed after the lapse of limitation period.  The opposite party No.2 being a retail outlet cannot provide any warranty.  As such, the allegations are denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     To establish the facts, the complainant and opposite party No.2 led evidence by filing affidavit and relied on documents.  Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party No.2.  Heard the complainant’s counsel. Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, for not rectification of the of the defects found in the LED TV sold by them and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased a Sharp LED TV along with other electrical items on 22.09.2013 from opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 is the business establishment for sharp systems.  The Sharp LED TV had warranty for a term of three years from the date of its purchase.  After the lapse of more than an year of usuage of the said TV, had developed problem on its display screen, i.e., lines and dots.  On reporting the problems noticed in the TV, the opposite parties attempted to rectify the defects by deputing service technicians, but in vain. 
9.    The complainant had sent the defective TV to the authorised service at Bangalore by courier on 27.06.2016 for rectification.  The TV is still lying with opposite parties.
10. As such, the complainant and his family members were deprived of watching the programmes on their TV.  A legal notice was caused on to the opposite parties on 09.03.2017, calling upon them to return the LED TV duly repaired or to refund the value of the TV with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase to till realization was not complied nor replied.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
11. The opposite party No.1 neither filed his affidavit evidence nor the written arguments except its version.  Wherein contended that, the TV was working without any problems for more than two years from the date of its purchase and denied the manufacturing defects in the set.  On inspection of the TV on 16.12.2015, no defects were detected, again on the complaint dated 06.05.2016, the complainant was directed to deliver the TV set to the authorised service centre at Bangalore.  The TV was received under broken condition.  As such, the complainant was informed the repair of broken panel could be rectified only on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty.  On refusal option of replacement of the damaged panel at discounted price another option of replacement of new LED TV on payment of 50% value was offered.  The reply from complainant was still awaited.  Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
12. The opposite party no.2 contended that, the complainant had failed to establish that, which opposite party had deputed the service technicians to attend to the defects.  Further, the TV was not sent to them for rectification.  The opposite party No.2 is carrying out the business of sale of various electrical and electronic goods manufactured by various companies. The complainant had watched the TV for more than a year without any allegations, ultimately noticing lines and dots on the display screen alleged the sale defective TV is totally denied.  The complainant ought to have contacted the authorised service centres located at the nearest place, with the complaint in TV and sought for rectification of the defects.  Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service in denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
13. On perusal of the material on record, the complainant had   purchased several electrical appliances along with a Sharp LED TV on 22.09.2013 from opposite party No.2, who is engaged in selling of various multi-brand products.  The complainant and his family members had enjoyed the programmes on TV for more than two years without any problems.  On noticing the lines and dots on the display screen, the same was brought to the notices of both opposite parties.  The opposite party No.1 had deputed its service technician on examination found no problems.  Again the same complaint, the complainant was asked to delivered the TV to the nearest authorised service at Bangalore for rectification.  As per the version filed by opposite party No.1 dated 23.10.2017, the had offered a TV at 50% lesser price of the new TV or replacement of damaged panel at maximum discount price, which was rejected by the complainant.  In view of the same, we opine that, the Sharp LED TV has suffered defects and the same was not rectified even though the TV was under warranty.  The demand for replacement charges for rectification, for the product which was under warranty period, was unjustified.  Therefore the opposite party No.1 is liable to rectify the defects in TV free of cost and also liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service, mental agony, inconvenience caused.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.   

14. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, the complaint is hereby allowed in part and hence, the following :-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to rectify the defects in Sharp LED TV free of cost or to replace the said TV with defect free new TV similar make and feature or to pay the value of the TV by retaining the defective TV within 60 days of this order.  In default to comply, the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day until compliance.
3. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony, inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 60 days of this order.  In default, the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.5,000/- until payment.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.1 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
6.  Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.