IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 3rd day of September, 2021.
Filed on 12-06-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.126/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Puthran.R 1. Sri.Ramesh Babu
Vadakkeparambu Assistant Manager
Punnapra North Kerala Police Subsidiary Canteen
Alappuzha A.R camp, Bazar P.O., Alappuzha
(Party in person)
2. The CEO/M.D
Head Office, L.G Electronics ,
India Pvt. Ltd., D-59, Site No.4,
Industrial Area, Surajpur Kasna Road
Surajpur, Great Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201306
3. The Officer-in-Charge
Registered Office, L.G Electronics
India Pvt.Ltd., A Wing, 3rd floor. D3,
District Centre-SAKET,
New Delhi-110017
4. Sri.Don, Area Sales Manager,
L.G Electronics India Pvt.Ltd.
43/565B, 1st floor, Fortune Arcade
N.H Bye-pass, Palarivattom
Ernakulam- 682024
5. The Manager in Charge
Pioneer Electronics (Service Centre)
Near Pazhaveedu Temple
Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha
(Adv.Smt.A.K Rajasree for opp. parties
2,3,4 and 5)
O R D E R
SMT. P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a LED TV from 1st opposite party during festival season of onam, on 06.09.2019 for Rs.40,001.63/-. He wished to purchase the said TV for the main objective to help the education of his children who were studying B.Tech and B.Sc since educational programmes through the various channels helped much in their future education and also in need of some sort of entertainment to the complainant and his wife for time pass. On seeing the advertisements in newspapers and Medias regarding the various brands, finally the complainant had decided to purchase the said TV from 1st opposite party, being police officials will ensure good and immediate service to its customers through the companies. More over that the salesman Sri.Sanu pointed out that LG 43 UM 7300 PTA is the best selling one, with outstanding performance and with three years warranty. The merits pointed out includes, “un-matched performance, un-matched product quality and un-matched service experience”. After installing the said TV on 06.02.2020 while the complainant and his wife were watching the important Government directions as regards the preventive measures to be adopted to escape from Covid-19, suddenly there was a sound from the TV and the display of programmes stopped. Afterwards a red light was seen. Soon the complainant switched off the TV for some time. When the complainant switched on the TV after some time, only some lines were seen on the screen and after that the lines seemed like spider web. It is the fact that after reporting 1st Covid-19 case, the situation was changed and in that pandemic situation people were watching the directions and informations from Government of State as well as Central and medical departments for escaping from the clutches of the disease. But the only media available with the complainant for getting this information was the TV, which was not functioning from 06.02.2020. Considering the necessity to hear / view and adhere to the government directions, the functioning of the TV was a necessity. The complainant therefore rushed to the military canteen and informed the matter to Sri.Sanu, the salesman. He registered the complaint in the respective site of the company and the same is RNP 200207-016879. Thereafter the service technician inspected the TV and informed that certain parts of the TV has physical damage and also informed that certain parts have to be replaced by new parts with its cost of Rs.20,000/- since these parts are not covered by warranty. According to the complainant, the TV has to be repaired free of cost, as the TV is under warranty period. After contacting several times, there was no positive reply from the part of opposite parties. The complainant and family is not able to view news channels or any other essential programmes during the time of covid pandemic. The complainant sent registered letters to the opposite parties Nos.2,3 and 4 informing the replacement or refund to the said TV, and there was no reply after receiving the letter. From March 21st the government has declared lockdown and even at that time, the complainant was unable to watch news on TV as the said TV is the only medium to watch news. The opposite parties have not taken any initiative to repair or replace the complainant’s TV. Then the complainant contacted Mr.Don, the area sales manager of the opposite party and he informed that he will personally take initiative to repair the TV and said that he will send a new technician to the house. But no technician visited the complainant’s house and after contacting Mr.Don, he said that he is ready to repair the TV by reducing 40% of the amount of Rs.20,000/- which was said by the opposite party, even without inspecting about the condition of the TV. After that the complainant again contacted Mr.Don and he replied that he will talk to the superior officer and then he will reply. But he never contacted the complainant back. According to the complainant, due to the irresponsive behavior of the opposite parties, the complainant’s family had to suffer lot of inconvenience, distress, mental strain and disappointment. The complainant also lose faith in the opposite party, and therefore, desires to accept back the TV and refund its cost with interest so that he can purchase a TV from a company which will assure satisfactory service as per norms.
2. 1st opposite party filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complainant bought LG 43 UM 7300 PTA LED TV from the Alappuzha subsidiary central police canteen and the said TV went off at the time of usage on 06.02.2020. The said defect was informed to the salesman at the canteen and a complaint was registered on 07.02.2020. On the above circumstance the complainant contacted the service centre for several times and there was no positive reply from their part. The TV was covered under 2 years warranty, but the complainant was informed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- for repairing the TV. The Alappuzha canteen is the subsidiary branch of the central police canteen, Pallipuram and the products which are inspected and carried forward from the central canteen. Subsidiary canteen is the place where the products are distributed from the central canteen. The warranty and service related issued are rectified through the companies directly. Canteen authorities have no responsibilities regarding the warranty period or service related issues of any companies. Thus, the said complaint is to be rectified by the LG Company by themselves.
3. Opposite parties No.2 to 5 filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complaint itself is a cooked up story for making economic benefits from these opposite parties. There is no fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality and standard of the product. There is no inadequacy in the manner of performance from the part of these opposite parties which is required to be maintained. The alleged defect is not covered under warranty. The warranty policy states the nature of the defect which will be rectified and the nature of the alleged complaint will not come under the policy terms. The alleged complaint is caused due to the negligence of the complainant or the persons under him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The defect noticed to the TV is only due to the mishandling of it by the complainant thereby the opposite parties are not bound to compensate the complainant. As alleged in the complaint, the complainant has not informed about the deficiency in service or manufacturing defect with respect to the TV to the opposite parties or to their serviceman. The supply of materials to the police subsidiary canteen is subject to technical verification and checking and the same is done in the presence of authorized police personal of the department. It is only after verification and satisfaction the articles are being taken to the canteen for supply. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties since the same is sought for are without any basis and bonafides. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.
4. The points that came up for determination are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the TV in question?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 and A5 series and A6 series on the part of complainant and Ext.B1 on the part of opposite parties 2 to 5. Heard both sides.
6. Point Nos.1 to 3
For the sake of convenience these 3 points are discussing together. The complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext. A1 to A4 , A5 series and A6 series. The complainants case is that he had purchased a LED TV LG 43 UM 7300 PTA on seeing its beneficial facilities from advertisement in newspaper and other media. But after a short period of its installation the said TV was defected by non-functioning. According to the complainant it was at the peak time of Covid-19 pandemic period, when the people were watching the information and directions from government and health department mainly through television in its various channels, but the complainant could not get this facility because of its defect which was not cured even after made requests to the opposite parties. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by opposite party No.1 which shows that the complainant had purchased the TV in question on 06.09.2019 along with other articles. Ext.A2 is the demo checklist with warranty card. Ext.A3 is owner’s manual and Ext.A4 is the copy of registered notice send by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A5 series are postal receipts and track consignment , Ext.A6 series are returned unserved envelops addressed to opposite parties No.2 to 4.
According to the complainant he had purchased the said TV by believing the credibility of 1st opposite party as it is police canteen and also by believing the words of its salesman regarding the quality and performance of said TV. He purchased the TV on 06.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.40,001.63/-. However on 06.02.2020, within a short span of purchase it became defective and not functioning. Immediately after realizing the said defect the complainant approached 1st opposite party, there they contacted opposite party No.4 and registered a complaint to rectify the defect of the TV. The service technician of the opposite parties visited the house and made some attempts to repair the TV. It was admitted by the complainant in cross examination also. But it was informed by the technician that certain parts of the TV has physical damage and those parts need to be replaced by new parts. He also informed that since those parts are not covered under warranty, the complainant will have to pay Rs.20,000/- to replace the same. According to the 1st opposite party warranty and services has been provided by the manufacturer of the products and hence 1st opposite party had intimated the defects regarding the subject matter to the authorities of the company and 1st opposite party has no liability. The said version of the 1st opposite party is not at all admissible. Because in several cases regarding defective products, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as National Commission have held the retailer as well as the manufacturer is responsible for the quality of goods sold to the consumer.
The complainant had purchased the said TV in question on 06.09.2019 and as per Ext.A2 the warranty period existed till 05.09.2020 (12 months). Admittedly the complaint had occurred to the TV in question was on 06.02.2020 ie, within the period of warranty offered by opposite parties and therefore opposite parties are liable to cure the defects of the said TV. In connection with terms and conditions of warranty opposite parties produced Ext.B1 which is mismatched with Ext.A2 warranty. On the basis of Ext.B1 the learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5 vehemently argued that according to clause 15 of the terms and conditions the complainant is not entitled to repair the TV with free of cost. Ext.A2 is the warranty card produced by PW1, the same is undisputed by opposite parties which we prevail as evidence. Moreover the opposite parties did not ascertain whether the defect occurred due to the mishandling or customer abuse to the TV. It is pertinent to note that the failure to the display is not being minor in nature, it can be considered as manufacturing defect and it is too be noted that such defect occurred within a short span of time. Besides that it is also considered that a common man does not expect such a defect to the product he bought by huge spending within a short period.
The criteria of declaring manufacturing defect does not exists only depending upon expert opinion. Circumstances and facts of the case also play its role in reaching the final result. Here in this case the display stopping is the problem of TV so need not taken further opinion about the defect. There is no evidence before us that such defect occurred due to the mishandling of the TV by the complainant. On the contrary it cannot be ruled out the probability of inherent defect since the defect of TV in question occurred within a short period of 5 months from installation. It appears that the complainant had sent legal notice to the opposite parties, but they did not respond. The defect was generated within the period of warranty. It is no doubt that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get a hassle free gadget especially when he had spent such a huge amount for the same. The opposite parties are failed to contrast the evidence of the complainant. In view of the above discussions opposite parties are contractually and legally liable to rectify the defects or replace the same.
However, the Hon’ble National Commission in Sony Ericson India Ltd. Vs. As his Aggarval 2007 CPJ 294 (NC) held that there is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Commission in ordering refund the price of the TV. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties are equally liable to refund the price of the disputed TV set along with interest to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not ordering any compensation, but the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost from the opposite parties.
7. Point No.4
In the result the complaint stands allowed in part as follows:-
- The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.40,001/- (Fourty thousand and one rupees only) being the price of the defective TV set together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization, and take back the said defected TV.
- The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) towards litigation costs to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 03rd day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. P.R Sholy (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Puthran.R (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Bill issued by opposite party No.1
Ext.A2 - Demo checklist with warranty card
Ext.A3 - Owner’s manual
Ext.A4 - Copy of registered notice sent by the complainant
Ext.A5 series - Postal receipts and track consignment
Ext.A6 Series - Returned unserved envelops addressed to opposite parties No.2 to 4
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of warranty card
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
