BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

(Muvattupuzha Camp Setting)

 Date of filing :  23.04.2016

                                                                                              Date of Order : 15.02.2018

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                    President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member,

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                        Member.

                            CC.No.236/2016

                                   Between

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant, Advocate Thomas George had purchased an LED TV Model No.LC-32LE 341 M 32 IN) from the 5^th opposite party – Every Home Appliances on 26.04.2014 for a price of Rs.26,000/-.  The above TV was purchased by the complainant believing the assurance given in the advertisements of the opposite party in several newspapers.  The 5^th opposite party also made to believe the complainant that they will render proper maintenance, replacement or repair for the television in time anywhere in Kerala. But within 4 months of purchase, the product began to show complaints.  The circuit board was ruined.  Hence the board is to be replaced.  The TV was kept idle for several months due to the non-availability of a new board and the defective circuit board was replaced in January 2015 and after 3 months the TV started showing different colours on the screen.  The complainant registered a complaint on 24.11.2015 and the authorized technician came on 27.11.2015 and he informed the complainant that the panel of the TV is to be replaced with a new panel for which the complainant has to pay Rs.16,000/-.  After two days a lady from the authorized service centre, Ascend service informed the complainant through phone that the warranty period of the TV was not over and they would try to replace the panel as early as possible.  But nothing was done to repair the TV and the complainant’s attempts to contact the opposite parties through the toll free number were in vain.  It is contended that the TV was suffering  from inherent manufacturing defect therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the TV with 12% interest from the date of purchase till realization, that the complainant is entitled to get back the inspection charge of Rs.200/- collected illegally from the complainant on 27.11.2015.  Hence this complaint is filed seeking orders of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the price of the TV of Rs.26000/- along with 12% interest form 26.042014, date of purchase till realization, to refund the inspection charge of Rs.200/- illegally collected from the complainant on 27.11.2015 with 12% interest to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the deficient service offered by the opposite parties and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant along with the costs of this proceedings. 

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum and opposite parties filed their joint version.

3. Version of the opposite parties

The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased an LED TV of Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd from the Distributor Agent on 26.04.2014.  The 1^st call was on 18.07.2014 requesting for the installation of TV and TV was mounted on the wall using bracket on the very same day.  The next 3 calls from the complainant were on 22.11.2014, 15.02.2014 and on 02.01.2015.  the complaints registered on the above days were rectified by adjusting the service mode and the complaint registered on 25.01.2015 was rectified by replacing the PCB in February 2015.  A new technician went to the residence of the complainant on 28.11.2015 in response to the call received from the complainant on 24.11.2015 and he demanded the warranty documents and invoice for taking the approval for panel replacement but the complainant did not provide the warranty documents to the technician.  Therefore the technician issued bill against inspection charges and the complainant paid the inspection charges of Rs.200/-.  It is submitted that best services were provided to the complainant based on the terms and conditions of warranty and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  It is further submitted that the products manufactured by the opposite party company are of world class and tested as per international safety standards and the manufacturing facility of the opposite party – Company are ISO 9001 & ISO 14000 certified.  It is contended that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious hence the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of this complaint.  

4)       Issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

(i)      Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant has proved any manufacturing defect in the TV purchased from the opposite parties?

(ii)      Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony if any suffered by the complainant along with costs?

5.  The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and the documentary evidence furnished by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A5.  The opposite parties neither produced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence.
6. Issue Nos. (i) Issue Nos. (iii)

There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had purchased an LED TV manufactured by Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 24.04.2014.  Exbt. A1 is the retail invoice (in original) dated 26.04.2014 evidencing the above purchase.  Exbt. A2 is the original cash receipt issued by Ascend Service dated 27.011.2015 showing receipt of Rs.200/- by the technician Exbt. A3 is the lawyer notice dated 06.04.2016 issued by Adv. Sherman A George to the opposite parties 1 to 5.  Exbt. A4 is the Acknowledgement card of original Lawyer notice sent to 1^st, 4^th, and 5^th opposite parties and Exbt. A5 is the acknowledgment card showing the date of delivery on 02.02.2017 against the 4^th opposite party regarding the intimation of sanction petition of Interrogatories.   None of the evidences furnished by the complainant goes to prove any manufacturing defect of the TV purchased by the complainant.  The complainant has not also furnished any opinion of an expert that the TV was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects.  The complainant also not produced the warranty card.  However, the complaint’s requests made to the opposite parties were promptly attended by the opposite parties and were cured then and there.  Therefore, complainant has not established or proved any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the last complaint-request made on 24.11.2015 was after one year of purchase of the TV and the technician who attend the above complaint had charged only the inspection charges of Rs.200/- on 28.11.2015 and the defect was not cured from non-production of warranty card.  The complainant has not also produced the warranty card before this Forum.  However, he is entitled to get paid service if the warranty period is over.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has not proved any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party or any inherent manufacturing defect of the TV purchased by him.  The 1^st issued is therefore decided against the complainant.

7. Issue No. (ii)

Having found the issue Nos. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue No. (ii).

8. In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of February 2018.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                    Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

                                                          APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:          Nil     

Date of Despatch:

By Hand:

By Post:

                                         …................