BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.40/2012

Dated this the 11^th day of May 2015.

Raghu @ Malayalathan,

S/o.Gothandapani,

No.9, 1^st Cross, Sridhar Nagar,

Ariankuppam,  Pondicherry-605 007.                                         ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. Shriram Shoppe, (L.G. Shoppe)

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    No.318, M.G. Road, Puducherry-605 001.

2. Balaji Enterprises,

    (Authorised Service Centre)

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    No.14, 6^th Cross, Jawahar nagar,

    Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry-605 005.

3. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    AA11, 2^nd Avenue, Parthima Tower

    Anna nagar West, Chennai.

4. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasina nagar,

    Greater Noida -201306(UP)                                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                                  :  Thiru,H.D.Kumaravelu , Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:OP.1&2       : Exparte

                                                           OP.3&4       : Thiru.M.Lakshminarasimhan, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an award in favour of complainant and as against the opposite parties a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical suffering met out to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for their acts of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and also to direct the opposite parties to replace defective LG LCD TV by a band New Television model LG LCD TV 32 LG 80 FR free from any defects to the complainant and also grant complainant such further and other reliefs as to this Forum may seem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant purchased television model L.G. LCD TV 32L G80 FR  for an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the first opposite party on 25.01.2010.  Right from the day one of the installation of the LG LCD TV it had developed complication and the complainant and his family members did not have the happiness in the new LG LCD TV.   The complainant approached the OP.1 and 2 and informed them about the problem in the new TV.  OP.1 has compelled the complainant to have an AMC for the new LG LCD TV and also informed the complainant that the AMC is a 'Happing Living Plan'.  The complainant invested Rs.4690/- towards the 'Happy Living Plan".  The second opposite party's representatives have been attending to the problems developed in the new GV.  This has been the routing procedure and OP No.1 and 2 have been informing the complainant that things will get set in position and there will no problem in future.   The LG LCD TV has been developing problems even during the warranty period.

3.         It is further submitted by the complainant that the small problem in the LG LCD TV suddenly developed a big problem were by the picture started to shake with a bunch of lines in the bottom of the display screen.   This happed in the month of March 2012 and the technicians of OP.2 visited the LG LCD TV and noted the problem and informed the complainant that the TV had problem in the panel board and the panel board is out of stock.  On oral complaint in docket no.TNAI120503034500 dated 03.05.2012, the fourth opposite party's representative visited the complainant's house and instructed to hand over TV to the second opposite party.  On 21.05.2012 at about 4.54 p.m. the complainant handed over the defective TV to the second opposite party and he had issued a job card in receipt of the same.  Even after completion of four weeks, the complainant has not received any communication from the OP.2.   When he enquired the status of the complainant through online, he came to know that the job sheet has been closed. OP.3 is having supervisory control over OP.,2 with regard to the service but he also keeping quite without answering to the job sheet. The complainant came to a concrete conclusion that the LG LCD TV sold by the first opposite party suffers a serious manufacturing defect and is defective.   The complainant is not interested to get back the defective set as a problem is a continuing one.  The complainant has been put to lot of mental and physical strains.  The complainant quantifies the sufferings for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice at Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant has issued legal notice to all the opposite parties claiming compensation. Though the said notice received by the opposite parties no reply was given by them.  Hence this complaint.

4.         The opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and were set exparte.

5.         The following are the averments narrated in the reply version filed by the third and fourth opposite parties:

            The opposite parties denied all the averments contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version.  The fourth opposite party is a multinational private limited company and it involves in manufacture and sales of various electronics goods including televisions in various kinds and models. The complainant reported the complaint about the lines in picture in TV, the opposite parties had at once checked said TV and found that the panel had developed problems by normal wear and tear by continuous uses for over 2 years.  The panel board sent for replacement got damaged in transit and the opposite parties were again taken efforts to get a new board.  The complainant visited the first opposite party and inspected on demonstration of repaired TV and had then stated satisfaction.  When complainant was in natural look around of TVs in show room and had casually enquired on new technologies in latest models. He had suddenly wished to get a new and latest LED TV with several more new features and convenience.  Then he started asking for replacement and efforts taken by the opposite party to convince the complainant ended vain.  The complainant's complaints were duly attended by the opposite parties and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  There is no factual or legal justification for rectification or replacement of referred TV or for payments of alleged compensation.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.   

6.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C11.  On the side of the OPs.3 and 4, one Manikandan @ Ranjith has been examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5..

 7.        Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice attributed by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

8.         Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased one Television model LG LCD TV 32L G80 FR from the first opposite party for valid consideration of Rs.35,000/- on 25.01.2010 vide Ex.C1(i).  The second opposite party is the authorised service centre.  The complainant has paid Rs.4,690/- on 13.03.2010 through the second opposite party for AMC vide Ex.C(ii).  The third opposite party is the Branch office of the fourth opposite party at Chennai.  The fourth opposite party is the manufacturer.  Hence the complainant is the consumer for all the opposite parties.

9.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleading, Exs.C1 to C11, reply version of OP.3 and 4, Exs.R1 to C5 and evidence adduced by CW.1 and RW.1.  From the records there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the said TV and the AMC.  The allegation of the complainant is that within the warranty period suddenly developed a big problem in the Television that the picture started to shake with a bunch of lines in the bottom of the display screen.  The complainant reported the same to the second opposite party in the month of March 2012.  The complainant had handed over the said alleged television to the second opposite party to rectify the defects on 21.05.2012 vide Exs.C7 and C9.  The complainant submits that the second opposite party has assured to rectify the television within a week.  On contra, the second opposite party has not returned the said television after completion of four weeks even after request made by the complainant.  The complainant has relied Exs.C2, 3, 4,5, 6 and 8, the communications and efforts taken by him to get back the rectified television.  The complainant issued legal notice Ex.C10 to the opposite parties and Ex.C11 (1 to 4) are the acknowledgement cards for the same.  The opposite party has neither returned the television nor replied for the notice.

10.       The opposite parties have relied upon their own documents Exs.R2 to R5, the AR List and Reject report and job card.  The Ex.R5 contains that the defect reported by the complainant on 21.05.2012 and completed by the second opposite party on 21.06.2012.  There is no proof that it was communicated to the complainant and it does not have any signature of the complainant/consumer.  The opposite party denied all the allegations made by the complainant and admitted that the panel board had developed problems by normal wear and tear by continuous uses for over 2 years and further admitted that the said television was unfortunately damaged in transit.

11.       From the facts of the case it is clear that the alleged television has the recurring defect and not handed over the same to complainant even after repeated demand made by the complainant.  The RW.1 deposed during cross examination that "It is true to say that the complainant's TV had a problem in the panel board.  The panel board is an important part in the functioning of TV.  It is true to say that if there is problem in the panel board, the TV will not function properly.  I have not filed any document to show that the complainant has been informed in writing about the rectification of the defect in the television set given for repair.

12.       Hence the television purchased by the complainant is having major problem and not rectified the same by the opposite parties to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The purpose for which the television purchased by complainant is not fulfilled.  The complainant suffered loss and injuries.  The said television is vested with the opposite parties till date.  Hence the complainant proved his case and the opposite parties are attributed deficiency in service and Unfair trade practice.  The complainant is entitled for the relief and the opposite parties are liable for the same.

13.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point no.2, this complaint is hereby allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.  Hence the opposite parties are directed:

1. To return Rs.35,000/- the cost of the television and Rs.4690/-, the annual maintenance charges received from the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation for the loss and injuries sustained by the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 11^th day of May 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  

CW.1              28.03.2014                Raghu @ Malayalathan

OPPOSITE PARTYS WITNESS: 

RW.1              08.08.2014                Manikandan @ Ranjith

COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER