Telangana

Khammam

CC/27/2017

Kandula Varnika D/o.Kandula Ram Mohan Rao, Age: 3 years, being minor rep by her father and Natural Guardian Kandula Ram Mohan Rao ,H.No:3-150/50 Danavaigudem Near Sub-Jail, Khammam Rural Mandal Khm - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Person, Reliance Retail Limited DR No.5-1-662, R.R Complex, Wyra Road Khammam Distric - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.Sita Rama Rao/ Sri.Palevla Venkateswarlu

01 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

 

Dated this, the  1^st day of May,2018

          CORAM: 1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc. LL.M.,}– President

                        2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

                                   C.C. No.27/2017

Between:

Kandula Varnika, D/o. Kandula Ram Mohan Rao,

Age: 3 years, Occu:Nil, R/o. H.No.3-150/50, Danavaigudem,

Near Sub Jail, Khammam Rural Mandal, City and District.

(being Minor Rep.by her father and natural guardian Kandula Ram Mohan Rao, S/o.Venkatesharlu, Age:28 years, Occu:Computer Operator)                     

…Complainant

                                    And

 

1. The Authorized Person, Reliance Retail Ltd.,

Door No.5-1-662, R.R.Complex,

Wyra Road, Khammam City and District.

 

2. The Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager, D-18/2, Okhla Ind Area,

Phage-II, New Delhi-110 020, INDIA.                         …Opposite parties

 

        This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                          Sri P.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for Complainant; Sri. Bandarupally Gangadhar, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1; opposite party No.2 appeared In-person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

 

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

1. The set of brief facts in the complaint are that the Complainant purchased Frolic High Definition LED TV, (Model No.LED 31110) from the Opposite Party No.1 on 16-05-2015 by paying sum of Rs.18,750/-, after few days the said LED TV was not working properly and the complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1 several times, but did not rectify it.  Thus, the complainant suffered both mentally and physically and she was unable to use the said LED TV.  The complainant personally approached the Opposite Party No.1 and requested to replace the LED TV or to refund the amount along with interest and damage caused to the complainant, but the Opposite Party No.1 paid deaf ear and bluntly refused the request of the complainant.  As such vexed with the attitude of Technician and employees of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant got issued legal notice on 18-02-2016 stating that all facts demanded to take back the TV and return the cost of TV within ten (10) days.  Subsequently the complainant got issued legal notice to the Opposite Party No.2 to refund the purchase amount within week days from the date of notice i.e. on 12-07-2016, but both the Opposite Parties have not complied all the legal notices demands.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to replace the LED TV or to return the purchased amount along with interest @24% p.a. from the date of purchase and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and pain arose due to deficiency of service of Opposite Parties.

 

2. In support of her case, the complainant filed the documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-5.

 

    i)    Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of Cash Receipt dt:16-05-2015.

    ii)   Ex.A-2 is the photocopy of customer copy dt:16-05-2015.

    iii)  Ex.A-3 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dt:18-02-2016 addressed to

                    Opposite Party No.1

    iv) Ex.A-4 is the original postal receipt and acknowledgment.

    v) Ex.A-5  is the Office copy of Legal Notice dt:12-07-2016 along with

          original Postal Receipt addressed to Opposite Party No.2.

 

3.      On receipt of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed Counter.  The Opposite Party No.2 appeared In-person.  The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 denied the contentions of the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 further stated through his Counter that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands as the complainant has suppressed the material facts, so as to get the claim amount.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary grounds of non disclosure and concealment of material facts and it is also not correct that the Opposite Party No.1 did not rectify the problem for last eight (8) months and due to the acts of technicians of the Opposite Party No.1 the complainant suffered both mentally and physically.  The complainant has purchased the LED TV on 16-05-2015 from the Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Intex Technologies India Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No.2.  On 11-09-2015 the complainant came to Opposite Party No.1 stating that the TV was not working, then the Opposite Party No.1 sent the technician to the house of the complainant on 12-09-2015 and thereafter observed that the panel of TV broken and leakage of internal fluid seen on screen due to Panel break and technicians opined that the display is due to physical damage and Panel break and accordingly the Opposite Party No.1 issued job sheet.  The same was informed to the complainant. The physical damage is not covered under the warranty. It is very clear in issuing job sheet that the said TV was not working due to panel break and sustained physical damages, in case of physical damage, the complainant cannot demand any relief against the Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Party No.1 is only sales centre and in case of any manufacture defect, the Opposite Party No.2 is only liable.  In this case, it is purely physical damage and was occurred due to mishandling the TV only.  The complainant purchased the TV on 16-05-2015 and she made complaint on 11-09-2015 and on 12-09-2015 the technicians of Opposite Party No.1 observed the physical damage of TV and the same was informed to her.  Thus after lapse of two (2) years, the complainant filed this case before the Hon’ble Forum on 21-08-2017, as such the complaint is not maintainable under the Law of facts.  Therefore, the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

4.       The Opposite Party No.2 has not filed any counter, but complainant derived the contentions through the Written Statement. 

 

5.  In support of their contentions, the Opposite Party No.1 had filed documents, which are marked as Ex.B1 to B3.    

 

i)  Ex.B-1 is the photographs of TV screens (3) in number.

     ii)   Ex.B-2 is the one Photograph and CD containing photographs of TV.

     iii) Ex.B-3 is the original job sheet of Reliance resQ.

   

 

6.      The Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 filed their Written Arguments.

        

7.       Heard oral arguments of both Parties.

8.      Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose

for consideration is,

                 Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?

                    

POINT:  It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the TV of Frolic High Definition LED TV, Model No.LED 31110 from the Opposite Party No.1 on 16-05-2015 by paying Rs.18,750/- and it was not working properly and the complainant contended that on several requests the Opposite Parties Technicians have not turned up and repaired the said defect, due to which the complainant could not enjoy with the said TV.  In her support she did not file any supportive documents.  The Opposite Party No.1 categorically stated in his counter that on receiving complaint from the complainant on 11-09-2015, he had sent his technician on the next day i.e. 12-09-2015 and observed that the Panel of TV broken and leakage of internal fluid seen on screen due to physical damage and panel brake and technicians opined that the display is due to physical damage and panel brake.  The Opposite Party No.1 issued job sheet i.e. Ex.B3 and informed the same to complainant.  The complainant has failed to answer this fact with substantial documents evidence.  Since the physical damage not covered under the warranty and also after lapse of two years of purchase, the complainant filed this case, thus it is apparent that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and this complaint is not maintainable.  Therefore, we are in opinion that the complainant is not entitled as prayed and the point is answered against the complainant. 

 

9.       In the result, this Complaint is dismissed, without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 1^st day of May,2018).

                                                                                       

                               

                    Member                           President

                                                          District Consumer Forum, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

   

Ex.A1:-	is the photocopy of Cash Receipt dt:16-05-2015.	Ex.B1:-	is the photographs of TV screens (3) in number.
Ex.A2:-	is the photocopy of customer copy dt:16-05-2015.	Ex.B2:-	is the one Photograph and CD containing photographs of TV.
Ex.A3:-	is the Office copy of Legal Notice dt:18-02-2016 addressed to Opposite Party No.1	Ex.B3:-	is the original job sheet of Reliance resQ.
Ex.A4:-	is the original postal receipt & acknowledgment.
Ex.A5:	is the Office copy of Legal Notice dt:12-07-2016 along with original Postal Receipt addressed to Opposite Party No.2.

                     

 

                      Member                         President

                                                          District Consumer Forum, Khammam.