IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 19.07.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Xavier Antony (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.183/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Satheesan 1. Sony India (Pvt.) Ltd.
Snehitha Registered Office A 31
Kalavoor P.O. Co-operative Industrial Estate
Alappuzha Mathura Road, New Delhi
(By Adv. Bijily Joseph) Pin – 110 044 It’s Authorized Office
2. The Manager, Madona Care Centre
Jewel Shopping Complex
Mullackal, Alappuzha
3. Nandilathu G Mart
Global Electronic and Home
Appliances, Building No.44/1065 A
Nehru Bhavan, New Bazar
Alappuzha
(By Adv. T.G. Sanalkumar – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Television set having model No. KLV – 32 R 402A manufactured by the first opposite party from the third opposite party who is the dealer of the first opposite party in Alappuzha for a total price of Rs.32,400/- on 13.9.2013. The first opposite party issued warranty up to September, 2014 in favour of the complainant. While the warranty was in force on 12.5.2014 when the above TV was functioning due to its manufacturing defect horizontal lines and shade were appeared on the screen and due to the fault it became impossible to watch the TV programmes properly. Complainant contacted the second opposite party and a complaint has been registered regarding the defect of the TV. On 16.5.2014 one technician sent by the second opposite party came to the house of the complainant. But they did not look into the complaint of the TV set and they left from the spot after ridiculing the complainant. The opposite parties did not care to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to replace a new TV set instead of the defective one or to refund Rs.32,400/- with interest to the complainant along with compensation.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The liability of the opposite parties 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 out side the scope of the warranty. On getting complaint from the complainant a technical team was sent at the residence of the complainant to fully examined the problem and rectify it to his satisfaction. But they found that the back panel of the TV was broken and therefore the warranty had been rendered void. The physical damage of any nature is not covered under the terms of warranty, thus a repair estimate of Rs.15,648/- was given by the technical team to demand change or replacement of the TV with a new one. The opposite parties are liable to provide free of cost service on the LCD only during the warranty period when the defect as arisen due to improper material or workmanship. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. An expert commissioner was examined as CW1. The expert commission report marked as Ext.C1.
4. The points came up for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. It is an admitted fact the on 13.9.2013 complainant had purchased a TV set from the third opposite party which is manufactured by the first opposite party. The total price fo the TV set as per Ext.A1 is Rs.32,400/-. It is also an admitted fact that first opposite party had issued warranty up to September, 2014. According to the complainant while the warranty was inforce, on 12.5.2014 when the above TV was functioning due to its manufacturing defect horizontal lines and shade were appeared on the screen and it became impossible to watch TV programmes properly. Opposite parties filed version stating that on getting complaint from the complainant they sent the technical team to examine the problem, but they found that the back panel of the TV was broken and therefore the physical damage of any nature is not covered under the terms of warranty. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the horizontal lines and shades were appeared on the screen of the TV only due to the manufacturing defect. On the contrary, opposite parties vehemently contended that the defect of the TV has been caused only due to any external impact and their product is free from manufacturing defect. An expert commissioner was appointed to examine the TV. The report produced by the expert is marked as Ext.C1. But the complainant himself filed objection to the expert report. As per the expert report the screen of the TV was broken due to the external impact and because of that the horizontal lines were appeared in the TV. He further stated that it was not a manufacturing defect. According to the complainant, the expert is not a qualified person. While cross examining the expert, he admitted that he did not open the TV for examining the defect. Apart from that he also stated that the defect occurred ‘by chance.’ It was not a satisfactory explanation expected from an expert. Moreover he did not open the TV for giving correct explanation about the defects of the TV. Hence we are not to place reliance on the opinion of the expert. At the same time the complainant failed to prove that the defect occurred in the TV was due to manufacturing defect. Opposite parties admitted in the version that in order to repair the TV, the estimated amount is to Rs.15,648/-. But they did not produce any evidence for the estimate that they made. At the evidence stage, even though the opposite party filed his proof affidavit, he deliberately abstained from entering into the witness box for cross examination for reasons best known to him. In the absence of any such evidence, we cannot accept the estimate stated in the version. It is true that the defect of the TV set had occurred within the warranty period, hence the manufacturer should show a liberal attitude towards the customer. As per Ext.A1 complainant had paid Rs.32,400/- towards the cost of the TV. The defect occurred within the short time of purchase. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that granting a relief under the equitable principle will be just and proper in this case. Hence the opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant is directed to contribute an amount of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of components required for rectifying the defect.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant on receiving an amount of Rs.5000/- TV set of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant towards the cost of the components. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - M. Satheesan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Cash bill for Rs.32,400/-
Ext.A2 - Warranty card
Ext.A3 - Copy of the complaint dated 18.6.2014
Ext.A4 - Postal receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
