Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/70/2017

D.M.Chandrashekaraiah s/o Mallayya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ragavendhra Musical Center - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.G.Dileepkumar

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.06.2017

DISPOSED      ON:03.01.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 70/2017

 

DATED:  3^rd JANUARY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	D.M. Chandrashekaraiah, S/o Mallaiah G.M, Aged about 60 Years, Municipal Colony, LIG-12B, Bhuvaneshwari Circle, Kelagote, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.S.G. Dileepkumar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Sri Raghavendra Musical Center, Official Sales of LG TV, Vasavi Mahal Road, Chitradurga.   2. Official Service Centre, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Kuvempu Road, Shimoga.   3. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Registrar Office, A-Wing,  III Floor, D-3 District Centre, Saketh, New Delhi-110017.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate for OP No.2 and OP No.3 exparte )

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to give new LG-3 LLB 530 LED TV or to return the price of the TV i.e., Rs.24,500/- along with interest, Rs.1,00,,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, the OP No.1 is the dealer and selling the LG-3 LLB 530 LED TV and OP No.2 is the Service Centre and OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the same on 26.05.2015 for Rs.24,500/- from OP No.1 under Bill No.2017.  The OP No.1 has given warranty for two years and extended warranty period for three years to the above said TV.  OP No.1 undertake to rectify the damages occurred in the said TV during warranty period.  On the basis of assurance given by OP No.1, complainant purchased the above said TV from the OP No.1.  It is further submitted that after using the said TV, on 13.03.2017 the working condition of the said TV is not proper, there is no functioning of pictures in the said TV properly and etc.   Again and again, there was some manufacturing defects and other unexplained problems found in the said TV.  The complainant has rushed to the OP No.1 and informed the same.  OP No.1 sent one technical person to rectify the problems found in the TV.  By that time, the technical person told the complainant that, the TV panel board is lost and told the complainant to send the TV to OP No.2, the service center.  Accordingly, the mechanic take the TV from the house of the complainant on 15.03.2017 for repairs.  It is further submitted that, after lapse of one week, the complainant telephoned to OP No.2 and enquired about the TV and also visited the shop of OP No.1 on 01.04.2017.  Thereafter, OP No.2 told that, the panel board of the TV is in good condition but, some parts were in defect, it will costs nearly Rs.6,000/- towards repairs.  But, mechanic of the OP No.1 told that the panel board in the TV is defective.  The OP No.2 says that, the some parts were defective not the panel board.  But, both of them have not given any proper reply to the complainant.  Both the OPs have given false information to the complainant.  On 15.05.2017, the complainant has sent the legal notice to both OP Nos. 1 and 2, the same has been served to the OP No.1 and 2 on 17.05.2017.  But, they have not replied to the said notice.  The cause of action for filing this complaint was arisen when the complainant has purchased the LED TV and issued legal notice on 15.05.2017 and the same was served on 17.05.2017 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.  

 3.    On service of notice to the OPs, Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed version.  Sri. Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed version.  After filing of this complaint, the complainant has impleaded the manufacturer as a party to this proceedings i.e, OP No.3.  Notice has been served to the OP No.3 but, it did not turn up and therefore, OP No.3 placed exparte.

OP No.1 has stated in its version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The complaint is false, created and concocted for one or the other reason, only to grab the money from the OP No.1.  The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint on the basis of jurisdictional point.  The allegations made in the complaint are all false.  The complainant has sworn a false affidavit before this Forum and the same is not admissible in the eye of law.  It is true that, the OP No.1 is the dealer of the LG TV and OP No.2 is the service center and OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the same.  The OP No.1 has sold the TV on commission basis whatever the material supplied by OP No.3, the same has been sold by OP No.1 on commission basis.  The OP No.1 is not aware of the defects found in the TV since the complainant was not informed anything regarding the same to OP No.1.  If any manufacturing defects arise in the TV, OP No.3 is held responsible for the same.  This OP No.1 is only a seller of the TV but, not the manufacturer.  The allegations made in the complaint are completely false, created and concocted for filing this complaint and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.1.

OP No.2 filed written version stating that, complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.   Further it is submitted that, the complainant has not come with clean hands and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the same ground.  Further it is submitted that, this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  The answering OP submits that, the complainant has purchased the LG TV on 26.05.2015 vide cash Bill No.20175 from OP No.1 is true.  It is denied that, there is a free service for three year from the date of purchase vide the guarantee card issued by the dealer is false.  It is false say that, after lapse of two years, the TV found to be defective and it was not working properly and there is a defects with regard to display.   The further allegations made in remaining paras of the complaint are all false.  It is submitted that, the complainant has purchased one LG-3 LLB 530 LED TV on 26.05.2015 for Rs.24,500/- is true and get one year extra warranty only on panel.  On 10.03.2017, the complainant informed the OP No.1 that, the TV had some problems, the OP No.1 sent one technician to rectify the problems found in the LED TV.  But, the said person told that, there is some problems with the parts and he has not told that, there is a problem with the panel board.  The problems found in the TV of the complainant is not comes under warranty.  The OP No.1 and 2 have not committed any deficiency of service and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 4.    Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-7 got marked.  OP No.1 has examined one Sri. P. Jayaprakash as DW-1 and no documents have been produced to prove its case.  Sri. Girish Kumar, Manager of OP No.2 has examined as DW-2 and no documents have been got marked.  

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.3 has supplied defective TV to the complainant and committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, the complainant has purchased one LG-3 LLB 530 LED TV from OP No.1 on 26.05.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.24,500/-.  After purchasing the above said TV, some problems arisen i.e., there is no display and the pictures not seen properly and other problems.  The complainant has intimated the same to OP No.1.  OP No.1 has sent one technical person to the house of complainant to rectify the problems found in the TV, the said person told that, there is a problem with the panel board and took the TV on 13.03.2017 for repairs and send the same to OP No.2 on 15.03.2017.  After that, the complainant visited the OP No.1 shop asking about the TV.  OP No.1 has given telephone number of OP No.2.  The complainant approached OP No.2 and asked about the defects in the TV.  By that time, OP No.2 told that, the panel board in the TV is good and there is defects in some parts in the TV.  But, the mechanic of the OP No.1 says that, the panel board is defective and the OP No.2 says that, some parts are in defect.  The complainant is in isolated mind that, which version is correct.  Here the OP No.3 is the manufacturer.  After impleading, OP No.3 did not appear before this Forum.  According to OP No.1 and 2, the OP No.2 has supplied defective TV to the OP No.1 for sale.  The OP No.2 and 3 have jointly and severally committed deficiency in service for non-solving the problems found in the TV.  The OP No.1 is only a dealer, he sold the articles whatever send by the manufacture on commission basis.  But, OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service.    If any problems arisen in the TV, the customer will have to approach the manufacturer.  The complainant has relied upon Ex.A-1 to 7 documents.  According to the complainant, the complainant has purchased one LED TV from OP No.1 as per Ex.A-1 i.e., Bill.    Ex.A-2 is the extended warranty card issued by the OP No.2.  Ex.A-3 to A-5 are the legal notice, postal receipt and served acknowledgement.  Ex.A-6 and A-7 are the photocopies of the said TV.   All the documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that, the complainant is having a good case and complainant has proved that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 and 3. 

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant.  According to the complainant, he purchased LG-3 LLB 530 LED TV from OP No.1 on 26.05.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.24,500/- manufactured by  OP No.3.  At the time of purchasing the TV, OP No.1 has issued a bill and extended warranty card to the complainant as per Ex.A-1 and A-2 which clearly shows that, the warranty is of two years and extended period for three years.  According to the OP No.2 warranty period is of one year, which is not correct.  According to the Ex.A-2, the warranty period is of two years.  The complainant has approached OP No.2 within warranty period from the date of purchasing the TV.  The OP No.2 is not able to rectify the problems found in the TV.  The defects found in the TV is within warranty period and the exhibits produced by the complainant clearly shows that, the OP No.2 and 3 have jointly committed a deficiency of service.  Hence, the OP No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally committed a deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.3 is hereby directed to replace new LG-3 LLB 530 LED TV of the same price within 15 days from the date of this order.  If fails to replace the same, the OP No.3 is hereby directed to return the price of the TV i.e., Rs.24,500/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of purchase.  OP No.1 is hereby directed to cooperate the complainant to recover the same from OP No.3. 

It is further ordered that the OP No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 03/01/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  P. Jayaprakash by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:  Girish Kumar by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax Invoice dated 26.05.2015
02	Ex-A-2:-	Extended Warranty Card
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal Notice dated 15.05.2017
04	Ex-A-4:-	Postal receipts
05	Ex-A-5:-	Served acknowledgements
06	Ex.A-6:-	Copy of the photo
07	Ex.A-7:-	Copy of the photo

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**