Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/138/2018

M.C. Manjunatha S/o Chandrashekharaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, The Pai International Electronics Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19/07/2018

DISPOSED      ON:08/02/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:138/2018

 

DATED: 8^th FEBRUARY 2019

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	M.C. Manjunatha, S/o Chandrashekharaiah, Major, C/o H. Bharathi, Anganawadi Teacher, Medehalli post, Medehalli, Chitradurga Taluk, District.   (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, The Pai International Electronics Limited, P.K.R. Plaza, Opp., Shankar Takies, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Authorized Signatory, L.G. Electronics India Pvt Limited, A-wing (3rd Floor), D-3 District Cener Saketh, New Delhi.-110017.   (Rep by Sri.Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate for OP No.2 OP No.1 In person)

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 refund Rs.30,290/- together with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, the complainant has purchased the LG LED 32 32 LJ573D LED TV from OP No.1 on 17.03.2018 vide Invoice No.CHI-0451182 for a sum of Rs.30,290/- with V-Guard Stabilizer Mini by availing loan of Rs.28,890/- from Bajaj Finance Company Ltd., and the same has been paid by the complainant to OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has assured for the prompt service and delivery.  The OP No.1 has given receipt bearing No.0451182 dated 17.03.2018.  At the time of taking delivery of the LG LED 42” TV, the OP No.1 has assured that, the LG company TV will give good service and also one year warranty for the product.  It is further submitted that, the above TV was not functioning properly, some lines are appearing in the TV Screen for the reasons best known to the OPs.  The OPs have supplied defective product, the same amounts to deficiency of service.  OP No.1 has sent Service Engineer but, still it is not functioning as assured by the Service Engineer.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 06.06.2018, but the OPs have not turned and make arrangements to repair the TV.  The cause of action arose for this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.   

3.      OP No.2 appeared through Sri.Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate and filed version.  OP No.1 has adopted the affidavit and version filed by OP No.2.  The OP No.2 has filed the version denying the entire allegations made in the complaint.  It is true that, on 17.03.2018, the complainant has purchased the LG LED TV, the same is good one.  On 18.03.2018, the Service Engineer has installed and showed a demo on 19.03.2018, the same was working properly.  After one month i.e., on 28.04.2018, one Bharathi called and registered a complaint at about 3-30 PM.  Immediately, our Service Engineer at about 6-30 PM attended the complaint and found that, the LED TV Panel was damaged and the TV was not working properly.  The Service Engineer Shivakumar asked the complainant that, how it is happened for that, the complainant not answered properly.  She suppressed some thin and told that, I don’t know.  Then the Service Engineer told that, the damage caused to the TV was not under the warranty.  The Service Engineer told the complainant, the repair will be done at the cost payable by the complainant, for that, the complainant was not agreed.  The OP No.2 is not liable to give free service because the damage was caused due to negligence on the part of complainant himself i.e., by mishandling of LED TV.  If the TV was not good, the TV was not working for two months and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prays for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OPs, one Sri. Vinay Kumar. G.U, the Area Service Manager has examined as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 to B-6 documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

 

5.      Arguments heard.

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

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service by supplying the defective LG LED TV 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.      There is no dispute between the complainant has purchased LG company TV from the OP No.1 on 17.03.2018 for Rs.30,290/- vide Invoice No.CHI 0451182 with V-Guard Stabilizer Mini by availing loan of Rs.28,890/- from Bajaj Finance Company Ltd., and the complainant has paid the entire amount to the OP No.1.  The warranty period of the said TV is of 12 months.  After purchasing the TV, some defects have been found in the said TV.  The complainant has approached the OP No.1 and requested to send any Technical person to repair the defective TV.  Accordingly, the OP No.2 has send the Technical person for repair the same.  The Technical Engineer by name Shivakumar asked the complainant to pay the service charge and item cost, but the complainant did not agreed with the same though also the Engineer repaired the complainant TV.  In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has purchased the LED TV from OP No.1, the same is manufactured by the OP No.2 by availing the loan from the Bajaj Finance Company Ltd.  But the OP No.2 has taken a main contention in the version and affidavit that the company is not responsible for any defective arising out of in the house of the complainant even though the warranty period is in existence.  But as per the documents produced by the complainant it clearly goes to show that the complainant has purchased the LG LED TV from OP No.1, but the OPs have failed to solve the problem found in the said TV and the Engineer concerned to the OP No.2 asking to pay the service charge and item cost from the complainant.  When the warranty was in existence, how the complainant can pay the service charge and item charge to the OPs, the same is not sustainable under law.  When the material purchased by the customer and the same is under warranty period, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to solve the problem found in the TV.

 9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP, it clearly shows that, the complainant has purchase LG LED TV from OP No.1 by availing loan from Bajaj Finance Company Ltd., and also paid the entire amount on that day itself to the OP No.1.  As per the warranty card issued by the OP No.1 shows that, the warranty period is for one year within that period, if any defects found in the TV, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to solve the same.  But, in this case, the OPs have neglected to solve the problems found in the TV of the complainant.  The Engineer concerned to the OP No.2 asked the complainant to pay the service charge and item cost, it is not correct.  Within warranty period, if any defects have been found in the TV, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to solve the same.  In this case also, the OPs have failed to solve the problems found in the LED TV, purchased from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2.  The exhibits produced by the complainant, the same were marked as Ex.A-1 to A-3 clearly shows that the complainant has purchased the LED TV from OP No.1, the same is covered with warranty period of one year.  The OP has produced Ex.B-3 and B-4, the photos the same shows that there is a defects found in the TV, the same is purely a manufacturing defect.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the LED TV supplied by the OPs is having manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to cure the defect found in the TV. 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.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and further the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,290/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of purchasing the above said TV i.e., from 17.03.2018 till realization.

            Further the complainant is hereby directed to handover the defective TV to OP No.1 after collecting the entire amount from the OPs.

            Further it is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

            It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 08/02/2019 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:

PW-1:  Sri. Vinay Kumar, the Area Service Manager, by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Invoice dated 17.03.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 06.06.2018
03	Ex-A-3:-	2 Postal receipts and 2 postal acknowledgements
04	Ex-A-4:-	Warranty card
05	Ex-A-5:-
06	Ex-A-6:-
07	Ex.A-7:-

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Authority letter dated 12.10.2018
02	Ex-B-2:-	Job Sheet dated 28.04.2018
03	Ex-B-3 to B-5:-	Photos
04	Ex-B-6:-	C.D

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**