Complaint filed on: 03.06.2016
Complaint Disposed on:22.04.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.64/2016
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Smt.Sudha W/o Sheshanna,
Hindu, Major, R/o 1st Cross,
Thyagarajanagara, Kadur Town.
(By Sri/Smt. D.N.Shankar Rao, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1.Sri.Manjunath S/o Raju,
Proprietor of Mysore Times
and Electronics, New Bus
Stand Road, Branch – N.H.
206, Kadur Town.
2.Sri.Rahul Sharma, Founder
and Head Office: Micromax
House, 90-B, Section 18,
Gurugaon 122015,
Haryana State.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. D.N.Prakash, Advocate)
(OP No.2 By Sri/Smt. D.S.Mamatha, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 & 2 alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective T.V. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 & 2 to replace the said defective T.V with new one or in alternative to refund an amount of Rs.15,500/- which was paid towards purchase of the said T.V with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased Micromax – LED TV bearing model No.32T7260HD, serial No.00040B75-4289233 from first Op on 15.08.2015 and paid Rs.15,500/-, for which Op no.1 issued a receipt to that effect, the said TV is manufactured by Op no.2. After purchase of the said TV complainant installed in her home and within 15 days from the date of purchase she noticed the said TV giving trouble, in fact when watching the TV the screen play used to switch off and complainant unable to watch the TV without any disturbance. Immediately, complainant approached the first Op and narrated the problem experienced in the TV, for which the first Op told the complainant that they are going to send the mechanic to the complainant house to solve the problem found in the TV, but inspite of repeated requests and demands the Op had not made any arrangements to send any mechanic or replaced any TV set. The problem started in the TV within 15 days from the date of purchase and within the period of warranty.
The complainant finally issued a legal notice against Op Nos.1 & 2 and called upon the OP Nos.1 & 2 to replace the said defective TV or any alternative to refund an amount of Rs.15,500/- which was paid towards purchase of the TV. Even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Ops have not complied. Hence, OP Nos.1 & 2 rendered unfair trade practice in selling a defective TV to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 & 2 to replace the said TV or in alternative to refund the said amount along with compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
3. After service of notice OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that the complainant has purchased Micromax HD TV (LED) on 15.08.2015 by paying Rs.15,500/- from this Op, but at no point of time the complainant had contact this Op and explained the problems as alleged in the complaint, in fact after purchase of the LED TV the complainant approached this Op to wall mount the said LED TV and this Op has wall mounted the said TV on 16.08.2015 under KTR No.462150, further on 07.09.2015 complainant approached this Op stating that the said LED TV is having the problem and asked him to attend the problem, accordingly this Op registered the complaint before 2nd Op on 07.09.2015 itself under complaint no.492542, but at no point of time this Op assured to solve the problem of the TV.
Further this Op advised the complainant to approach the service centre at Shivamogga, who is authorized service holder of the Op no.2 company. This Op also given an address of the service centre to the complainant, but complainant has not contacted the service centre and there is negligence on the part of herself in not contacting the authorized service centre.
There is no any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this Op in selling and delivering the TV to the complainant. After registering the complaint on 07.09.2015 the complainant had not at all visited this Op, this Op is only a dealer of Micromax LED TV and sales centre and hence he is not liable to pay any compensation and there is no cause of action arose against this Op and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op no.2 in his version has contended that the complainant has purchased LED TV from first Op who is the authorized dealer of this Op, but it is not true that the said TV is not functioning properly after purchase, at the time of selling the TV condition is proper and is in good condition. Anyhow they have received a complaint from complainant and after receipt of the complaint this Op has send the service executive person to visit the complainant house and to inspect the TV, accordingly the service executive person visited the house of the complainant and noticed that TV has fallen from elevation and surface of the TV was broken, the said service man also noticed that the complainant is having a small kids in the house, it may be a mischief played by the kids, it resulted in breaking of the surface of the TV, hence there is no any mechanical or electronic defects, hence the service executive has not done any service since the physical damage is not covered under the warranty clause -6. This Op prepared the job card bearing KTR 200616-887014 dated 15.11.2015 and the same was signed by complainant, the service executive clearly mentioned that there is only panel damage which is also known to the complainant, inspite of knowing all these facts complainant filed this false complaint alleging unfair trade practice on this Op and alleges manufacturing defect in the TV in order to gain wrongfully.
The service executive who is send to visit the house of the complainant also took the photographs of the TV and informed the complainant to repair the said TV by paying repair charges. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of this Op. The notice issued by complainant was suitably replied. Hence, submits dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4. OP Nos.1 & 2 not filed any affidavit or documents before this Forum.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is Unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. On going through the pleadings, documents produced by both complainant and Ops there is no dispute that complainant had purchased Micromax LED TV bearing model no.32T7260HD from Op no.1 on 15.08.2015 by paying RS.15,500/-, the only dispute raised by complainant is that after purchase of the TV she noticed that it was switched off frequently when watching the TV, immediately complainant approached the Op no.1, for which Op no.1 only advised the complainant to approach authorized service centre and also alleges that so far OP Nos.1 & 2 have not repaired the TV. Hence, prays for replacement of the TV or in alternative to refund an amount paid towards purchase of the TV.
11. On contrary OP Nos.1 & 2 have taken a contention that there is no any manufacturing defect found in the TV sold by them. After receipt of the complaint from complainant vide complaint no.492542, the Op no.2 had deputed one service executive to the house of the complainant, where he noticed the said TV was broken that may be due to fall from wall and advised the complainant to repair the said TV by paying repair charges as the physical damage not covered under the warranty. Hence, submits no unfair trade practice.
12. Complainant has produced receipt for having purchase of the TV marked as Ex.P.1, Warranty marked as Ex.P.2, Office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.3, Acknowledgment due marked as Ex.P.4 and also produced TV before this Forum marked as M.O.1, except these documents complainant had not produced any materials/documents to establish that there is a manufacturing defect in the TV, of course on observation of the TV which was produced before this Forum, we noticed there is a long crack on the display of the TV, the said crack definitely a physical damage, the reason for the physical damage was not explained by both complainant and Ops. Anyhow Op no.2 in his version has contended that the sales executive of the Op no.2 has visited the house of the complainant and informed after inspection that it was a physical damage. The complainant has produced warranty marked as per Ex.P.2 wherein we noticed that OP Nos.1 & 2 have not undertaken to repair the physical damage within warranty period, hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief claimed in the complaint.
13. We are of the opinion that complainant is at liberty to repair the physical damage of the TV by paying charges towards the repair. We found there is no any manufacturing defect in the TV. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 22nd day of April 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Receipt for having purchase of the LED TV dtd:15.08.15.
Ex.P.2 - Warranty Card.
Ex.P.3 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.4 - Postal acknowledgment due.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
NIL
Dated:22.04.2017
President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
