IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                          Wednesday the 29^th day of September, 2021.

                                      Filed on 14-02-2020

  Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.45/2020

   between

  Complainant:-                                       Opposite parties:-

Smt.Rari.B                                               1.  The Authorised Signatory

Kuttiyil Veedu, Parimanom                         L.G Electronics India Pvt.Ltd.

Muttom P.O. Harippad-690511                        Registered office, A Wing (3^rd floor)

(Adv.Sri.K.Sreekumar)                                (Adv.Smt.A.K.Rajasree)

                                                                  2.  The Authorised Signatory

                                                                        Pittappallil Agencies

                                                                        Dealers & Distributors of T V

                                                                        Appliances, Ambalappuzha

                                                                        10/27 BFIL Kochukalathil Plaza

                                                                        S N Kavala, Valanjavazhi

                                                                        (Exparte)

               O R D E R

C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-

The complainant purchased LG LED TV model 43 UK 6360 PTE108 CM from 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.51,000/-.  The 2^nd opposite party assured that the product has 3 year warranty.  It was further stated after one year, the said TV stopped functioning.  The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and they registered complaint.  The technicians of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and after inspecting the LED TV, they informed her that the panel of the TV requires replacement.  They informed that the complainant has to meet the expense as Rs.20,000/- since the product is out of warranty coverage.  The complainant alleged that, at the time of purchase the personal of 2^nd opposite party encouraged complainant’s son to buy this product and narrated its benefits.  Believing the words of the 2^nd opposite party that the product has provided 3 years warranty the complainant had purchased the said TV.  The complainant spent huge amount for purchase the said TV and for that she availed a loan from Bajaj Finance.    Hence she is not in a position to spend such a huge amount for repairing expense.  Moreover she is under the impression that the product is under the warranty coverage.  Thereby she suffered severe mental agony hence she filed this consumer complaint before this Commission seeking to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for money loss, mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

2.      Version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-   

          The complainant did not approach 1^st opposite party before this complaint and they provided only one year warranty of the product.  Further it is specifically mentioned in owner’s manual about what kind of free services they have been provided to their customers and they did not give any assurance to repair panel defect.  Hence there is no deficiency of service arise from the part of this opposite party.  Compensation claimed is exorbitant and this complaint is only to harass this opposite party.  Hence the same is to be dismissed.

3.      The points for determination are as follows:-

1. Whether opposite parties committed any deficiency of service?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?
3. Reliefs and cost?

4.      The complainant appeared in person and adduced oral and documentary evidence.  Ext.A1 and A2 were marked.  The 1^st opposite party appeared through the counsel and Ext.B1 marked.  Opposite party No.2 remained absent and set exparte.

5.      Point Nos. 1 and 2

          Ext.A1 is the invoice dtd.07.09.2018 is the evidence of transaction between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party, the dealer.  1^st opposite party is the manufacturer.  As per Ext.A1 complainant paid Rs.51,000/- (Fifty-one thousand) towards the price of disputed TV.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card.  As per Ext.A2 comprehensive warranty has been provided (12 months) to the product.  Ext.B1 is the terms and conditions of the TV set.  On going through said Ext.B1, in addition to 1 year comprehensive warranty, provided 2 year additional warranty on panel/ module governed by terms and conditions.  It is mentioned in ‘head No.3’ of Ext.B1 that “This extended warranty offer is applicable on purchase of size 80 cm (32) and above LG TV from selected authorized dealers/ distributors/ LG brand shops between 10^th August to 10^th September, 2017 and is applicable only on Panel/ module of the said TV subject to the following terms and conditions”.  It seems that the complainant purchased the disputed product on 07.09.2018, ie after the period of extended warranty offer in Ext.B1.  In view of the above discussion we found that the complainant is failed to convince the Commission that the opposite parties have provided 3 years warranty to the disputed TV.  Therefore, at any rate the complainant cannot claim the benefit of extended warranty offer to repair her TV.  Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is devoid of any merit.  

Point No.3

          In the result we dismiss the complaint.  No order as to cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the   29^th day of September, 2021. 

                                                           Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

                                                           Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Smt.Rari. B (Witness)

Ext.A1                -        Invoice dtd.07.09.2018

Ext.A2                -        Copy of warranty card

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

Ext.B1                 -        Terms and conditions of the TV set

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-