DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th  day of March 2013

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 29/11/2012

(C.C.No.214/2012)

P.J.John,

Purayidathil,

Vivekananda Lane,

Puthur, Palakkad

Kerala – 678 001                                             -       Complainant

(By Party in Person) 

V/s

1.The Authorized Signatory,

   L.G.Home, Parco City,

   Kandath Shopping complex,

   G.B.Road, Palakkad

   Kerala – 678 001

 (By Adv.Joy Kanhirathin chalil)      

2.The Manager,

   Nandilath Fridge Centre,

   M.G.Road, Near Ramdas Theatre,

  Thrissur, Kerala – 680 001                             -        Opposite parties

  (By Adv.Joy Kanhirathin chalil)      

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant purchased a television stand from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7990/- on 19/12/11. The complainant was also provided with the services of two assistants by the Manager who visited the house for assembling the television stand and mounting the television on the stand. The complainant was paid Rs.250/- towards the services provided by the assistants. The complainant purchased a 32 inch Samsung LCD television bearing model number C530 costing Rs.31,250/- on 23/4/11. The complainant purchased a television stand bearing model number  ‘Glass TV stand TV  079 LCD Bracket’ having specifications and dimensions which could mount his television. On enquiry the complainant was assured by the showroom Manager that the television stand could safely mount the television as well as DVD player and other appliances related to the television. The complainant is a senior citizen and electrical engineer by profession. On 20/3/2012 the complainant noticed that the television stand was slanting precariously which could result in displacement of the television. The complainant had to immediately provide some temporary mechanical support to the television to ensure that the television is not displaced. The complainant informed the matter to 1^st opposite party by way of a telephone call and requested for service assistance to rectify the defect of the television stand. Subsequently  after two days the 1^st opposite party sent two assistants to the residence of the complainant to remedy the defect of the television stand. The assistants informed the complainant that a plate in the television stand has been broken, the slanting was caused due to the broken plate and they dismantled the entire television stand. Further the assistants informed that the replacement plate was not available locally with the 1^st opposite party and the same needed to be arranged from 2^nd opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.100/- to the assistants. After two days the complainant was constrained to repeatedly follow up with 1^st opposite party to ensure that the plate is made available from 2^nd opposite party. Accordingly after a period of two weeks the assistants were reassembled with the new plate and the complainant paid Rs.200/- for the services.

On 14/05/2012 the complainant and his wife returning to their residence after a trip for three days, during which the residence was locked. The complainant was shocked to find the television along with the broken television stand lying on the floor.  On further examination the complainant realized that the television stand had collapsed causing the television to fall on the adjacent furniture which also got damaged and the television fell on the floor. The complainant immediately informed the 1^st opposite party about the mishap and they sent an assistant to examine  the damage after three days. After examining the damage, he informed that the television stand was damaged beyond repair. Further inspection the assistant informed the complainant that the television panel has been damaged and that also to be replaced.

He also informed the complainant that for any further assistance, contact the showroom Manager of 1^st opposite party. Complainant paid Rs.100/- towards the service. Accordingly the complainant contacted the showroom manager of 1^st opposite party and informed the damage of LCD panel of television due to the defective television stand. After enquiry with 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party informed that they are only the authorized dealers of LG brand and since the complainant’s television was that of Samsung brand, he could contact the authorized service center of Samsung.

The Samsung Service Center officials examining the television, the complainant was informed that the LCD panel of the television has been severely damaged and the same requires replacement. The service center officials also informed the complainant that a new LCD panel costs about Rs.15,000/-.  The complainant enquiring with the carpenters about the repairs required to be carried out to the furniture, informed by carpenters that it would cost Rs.1,000/-. Subsequently on several occasion, the complainant tried approaching the 1^st opposite party with regard to reimbursing the expenses towards purchase cost of the television stand and providing for the costs towards replacing the LCD panel of the television and repairing  the furniture. But the 1^st opposite party had refused to reimburse or provide for any such costs. Then the complainant constrained to replace the LCD panel of the television and repair the furniture without any assistance from the opposite parties. The purchase of a LCD panel of the television cost Rs.14,666/- and repair of the furniture cost Rs.1,000/- Thereafter the complainant contacted Mr.Robin the Manager of 2^nd opposite party  and informed the fact. But the 2^nd opposite party also nothing to do to solve the problem. Then the complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties.  Subsequently complainant received a call from 2^nd opposite party that they would look into the matter. The complainant has not been received any relief till date. The act of opposite parties amounts to supply of defective goods and providing deficiency in services. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1.    Pay a sum of Rs.7990/- towards the cost of the television stand and

2.    Pay Rs.14,666/- towards the expense incurred to replace the LCD panel of the television and

3.    Pay Rs.1000/- as cost for repairing the furniture and

4.    Pay Rs.6500/- as compensation for mental agony and

5.    Pay the cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased a glass TV stand from 1^st opposite party. The LCD TV has only placed on the Glass TV Stand and there was no warranty given to the Glass TV Stand. Further opposite parties stated that the complainant has purchased the glass TV stand with lowest price and he could not ready to buy the TV stand with warranty. At the time of purchase of the Glass TV stand had no warranty and no replace will be caused damage. The TV stand assembled by the complainant and not received Rs.250/- for assembling the TV stand. The assistants of the opposite parties had not repaired or replaced the TV stand and not received any amount from complainant to repair the TV stand. The damage of the TV stand was happened only to the negligence of the complainant. At the time of damage of TV stand, the complainant and his family was not in the house and so the reason to the damage of TV stand was not known. The television was not purchased from the opposite parties and they had not liable to pay any amount for compensation for the damage of television. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint.

Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant. The Commission Report marked as Ext.C1. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties   ?

2.     If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1 & 2 

We perused relevant documents  on record. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the Glass TV stand from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7990/- on 19/12/2011.

It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant had purchased the Glass TV stand TV 079 LCD Bracket from 1^st opposite party. The complainant admitted that the Samsung TV LCD placed on the TV stand. As per Ext.A3 the complainant purchased the Samsung Television for an amount of Rs.31,250/- from Das agencies on 23/4/2011. In Ext.A2 the complainant had purchased LCD panel for an amount of Rs.14,666/- on 5/6/2012 from the Samsung Service Center. According to the complainant on 14/5/2012 he and his wife returning to their house after three days trip shocked to find the television alongwith the broken television stand lying on the floor. After 5 months the date of purchase of glass TV stand, the television alongwith the broken television stand lying on the floor. There was no evidence produced  by the complainant to prove that how the television and TV stand fell on the floor.

Further complainant stated that  on 20^th March 2012 he noticed that the television stand was slanting precariously which could result in displacement of the television. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. Also the complainant had not cross examined by the opposite parties.

In Ext.C1 the Commissioner noted that TV stand is in a totally dismantled condition. Also the commissioner stated that three glass plates are in good condition. Any improper assembling leading to slippage of a fastener can cause tilting of the pedestal on which the TV is hung. The Commissioner stated that the damaged panel bearing SI.No.BW 07-0808A is replaced with a new panel. There is a dent visible on the front left of the TV frame possibly due to impact on a hard body. The TV is placed in the drawing  room. Since the back and the two sides are covered by wall / stair case there is no chance of any external body hitting the TV or stand from those sides. The opposite parties filed objection to Commission Report stating that the representative of the opposite parties intimated that as a special case sent air condition mechanic for fitting and assembling the stand is denied by them. But the opposite parties had not taken steps to examine the Commissioner. In Ext.C1 report the Commissioner attached a copy of Samsung Customer Service record card and the service engineer mentioned that defect detected is panel internal broken due to fall or external impact. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties.

Opposite party’s counsel argued that the complainant purchased the China made glass TV stand without warranty. The opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that they had given warranty for other TV stand placed on the shop. Also the opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that the complainant purchased the China made glass TV stand. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant had purchased glass TV stand TV 079 LCD bracket for Rs.7990/- After 5 months the television alongwith TV stand fell on the floor. After 3 months onwards the TV stand shown some defects and the assistants of opposite parties repaired and replaced the defects of TV stand. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show that the TV stand repaired by the assistants.

In Ext.C1 report the Commissioner noted that there  is a patch of repair on one leg of the Diwan adjacent to the TV stand and the broken leg is fixed with nails. According to the complainant the cost of repair of the furniture was Rs.1000/- No documentary evidence produced by the complainant to show  the cost of repair of furniture. Opposite parties had not sent reply notice to the lawyer notice. As per Ext.A1 the glass TV stand is to mount a television. As per the Commission Report the air conditioning mechanic done the fitting and assembling the TV stand. It is clear that the damage caused to the television and furniture are a direct consequence arising out of the damage of the defective television stand supplied by opposite parties.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as the price of Glass TV stand and LCD panel alongwith compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

 On receipt of the ordered amount, the complainant shall hand over the damaged glass TV stand to the opposite parties.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order,  failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of March  2013.

                                                                      Sd/-

Seena H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

     Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  –  Invoice No.2445 dated 19/12/2011 issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2  –  Cash receipt dated 05/6/12 issued by Uniquare to the complainant

Ext.A3  –  Invoice dated 23/4/11 issued by Das agencies to the complainant

Ext.A4  –   Copy of Adv. letter dated 19/7/12 sent to opposite parties.  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Commission Report

C1 – C.K.Ravindran

Cost

Rs. 3,000/-  allowed as cost of the proceedings.