O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

           The complainant purchased a Sony LED TV, Refrigerator and Washing Machine manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party vide Invoice No.1004 dtd. 15/08/2011. They ensured 1 year guarantee and 4 years warranty to the goods. They also made believe that the goods were of superior quality. Within the warranty period, the picture quality of the TV lost and gradually it was unable to see the picture. The defects were informed to the 2^nd opposite party on 10/06/12 but they did not turned up, even after repeated requests. Hence the complaint raised through the customer care of 1^st opposite party and they informed that the panel would have been spoiled and same will cause more than Rs.15,000/-. When the complainant asked for the warranty they informed that the product had only one year warranty and the same has already been expired. Since the complainant waited for the service of 1^st opposite party the time were run out, which caused serious hardship to the complainant. So a lawyer notice dtd. 06/02/14 issued to opposite parties for proper service and compensation. The 1^st opposite party replied it with false allegation. Eventhough 2^nd opposite party accepted the notice they neither replaced the product nor send reply to the notice. The 2^nd opposite party misrepresented the actual facts and sold low quality TV to the complainant and same amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice hence, this complaint.

          2) On receiving complaint, notice served properly to the opposite parties. They appeared through counsel and filed its version. The version of 1^st opposite party is as follows. The complaint is not maintainable. They admit the purchase made on 15/08/2011. The 1^st opposite party provides a limited warranty on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  From a perusal of the warranty terms it is clear that in case the customer faces any problem in the product, then he should directly approach the authorized service centres of the answering opposite party, whose details are also provided on the warranty sheet and the dealer who shares Agent and principal relationship with the answering opposite party is only the sales partner and the same is not authorized to provide after sales services on the products of the answering opposite party.  Opposite party provides a warranty of one year on the LCD purchased by the complainant. Once the warranty period expires, the repair of the LCD, if required, is carried out on a chargeable basis. The complainant approached the authorized service centre of the opposite party for the first time on 13/01/2014, that is, after using the LCD for more than Two years without any problem. The representatives of the authorized service centre inspected the LCD and found that the panel was required to be replaced. A repair estimate of Rs.11,287/-  was provided to the complainant which had to be approved by him in order for the repairs to be carried out. However, the complainant did not approve the repair estimate and insisted that the LCD be repaired free of cost, due to which the LCD could not be repaired at that time. Opposite party duly replied to the aforesaid legal notice vide its letter dtd.24/02/2014 soliciting the co-operation of the complainant to approve the repair estimate in order for the service centre to carry out the necessary repair of the LCD.  On 08/03/2014 stating that he was willing to have the LCD repaired by paying the repair cost. Accordingly , a sum of Rs.11,287/- was received from the complainant, the LCD was duly repaired The complainant has filed the present complaint only with a view to harass the opposite party and to make wrongful monetary gains therefrom, hence prayed for dismissal.

          3) The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows. Complaint is not maintainable. This opposite party has no right or authority to decide the guarantee period or warranty period. Each item has different duration of guarantee/warranty. One year guarantee and 4 years warranty stated in the complaint is only for the compressor of Refrigerator. Separate guarantee/warranty cards were issued to the customer. Guarantee and warrantee are in written form and by document. Hence it is absolutely false to say that the complainant had believed the statement of 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd  opposite party is not running any service centre nor it undertakes repair or maintenance.   2^nd opposite party denies that there is one year guarantee and 4 year warranty for all goods.  Since those goods do not have same period of guarantee/warranty. The statement in the complaint that the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party about the unusual lines appeared on the TV screen and requested 2^nd opposite party to check the defect and to service the LCD TV on 10/06/2012 is false. The 2^nd opposite party received a lawyer notice. 2^nd opposite party informed the matter to the 1^st opposite party and they said that they would do whatever they could. The 2^nd opposite party has no liability to pay the amount alleged to have been collected by the service centre authority. The 2^nd opposite party has not sold Television of inferior quality. The price is fixed by the manufacturers. The 2^nd opposite party has not given any promise. This opposite party has not insisted to buy the particular Television. The complainant had selected the items and purchased at his interest.  The 2^nd opposite party has no liability to repair Television. The complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for and prayed for dismissal.

          4) Points for Consideration

                   a) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

                        parties ?

                   b) Relief and costs ?

          5) From the side of complainant, the complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with compliant. He produced 6 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P6. Ext. P1 is the Retail invoice issued by 2^nd opposite party dtd.15/08/2011; Ext. P2 is the Lawyer Notice dtd.30/01/14; Ext. P3 is the Postal receipts (2 Nos.) dtd. 06/02/14; Ext. P4 is the A/D card; Ext. P5 is the Reply issued by 1^st opposite party dtd.24/02/14 and Ext. P6 is the Bill dtd. 12/03/14 issued by Access Electronics. Complainant examined as PW1. 1^st & 2^nd opposite party filed counter proof affidavit. 1^st  opposite party produced 5 documents which are marked as Exts. R1 to R5. Ext. R1 is the copy of Resolution of 1^st opposite party dtd. 07/02/14; Ext. R2 is the copy of warranty card; Ext. R3 is the copy of estimate dtd.13/01/2014; Ext. R4 is the copy of Job card dtd.12/03/14 and Ext. R5 is the  copy of resolution dtd.04/07/2011 of 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party Manager examined as RW1.

          Points :

          This is a case where in the denial of performance of warranty condition is in question Ext. P1 is the invoice dtd. 15/08/11 showing the purchase of product in dispute. Both the opposite parties admits the purchase. Now from the compliant itself it can be seen that the complainant approached the authorized service centre for getting the repairs done to the product and the respective repair charge were paid on 12/03/14. Now Ext. R4 cash bill proves the same.

          In cross examination the PW1 admits that the product has a warranty period of 1 year only and he further states that he was convinced by the warranty period that the product had only 1 year warranty period. It is true that the complainant has no case that the product has been produced for the service within the warranty period at the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party. Nothing also produced to substantiate the case of complainant regarding the date of defect appeared on the TV and intimation of the same to the 2^nd opposite party. It is an unbelievable case that he waited for more than 2 year to produce the TV for repair, especially when he pleads that he waited for reply of 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties case is that warranty card gives on its face proper course to be adopted to avail the service, even within the warranty period. They produced Ext. R2 plain warranty card to substantiate their case. The complainant failed to produce the warranty card of the TV in dispute and he tendered evidence regarding the same as, it could not be treated out. Thus considering the entire evidence as a whole the complainant miserably fails to prove that defect were caused within the warranty period. Hence this Commission finds that the complainant failed to establish his case.

          In the result, complaint dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30^th day of  December 2020.

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                              Sd/-

Sreeja S                          Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair                C.T. Sabu

Member                          Member                                             President

                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 Retail invoice issued by 2^nd opposite party dtd.15/08/2011

Ext. P2 Lawyer Notice dtd.30/01/14

Ext. P3 Postal receipts (2 Nos.) dtd. 06/02/14

Ext. P4 A/D card

Ext. P5 Reply issued by 1^st opposite party dtd.24/02/14

Ext. P6 Bill dtd. 12/03/14 issued by Access Electronics.

Complainant’s Witnesses :

PW 1 Mohanan K. R.

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Ext. R1 copy of Resolution of 1^st opposite party dtd. 07/02/14

Ext. R2 copy of warranty card

Ext. R3 copy of estimate dtd.13/01/2014

Ext. R4 copy of Job card dtd.12/03/14

Ext. R5 copy of resolution dtd.04/07/2011 of 1^st opposite party

Opposite Parties’ Witnesses :

RW1 Binu

Id/-

Member