O R D E R.
By Smt. Beena. M, President (In charge) :-
This is a complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant had purchased a 32 inch TCL brand television from the shop of the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs. 16,000/- on 01-04-2019. Then on 04-04-2019, the television was not working and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party shop and informed the facts. Afterwards, a person from the Opposite Party's shop came and inspected the television and at that time the original bill and guarantee card were collected from the Complainant without giving a receipt for that respect. Then the Complainant lodged a Complaint before the Sulthan Bathery Police on 8-04-2019. After the settlement talk held in the presence of the SI at the police station, it was agreed that the damaged television should be delivered to the Opposite Party’s shop and the bill for it should be returned to the Complainant and a new television of the same brand should be given to the Complainant after charging the cost of the television and the cost of the damaged television should be returned to the Complainant by the Opposite Party within a week. Then the Complainant on 08/04/2019 delivered the damaged television to the Opposite Party’s shop. Then the Opposite Party gave a new television of the same brand and charged Rs.16,000/- for the same. He also promised to refund the money when the person from the Company comes to collect the damaged television set. Though the Complainant several times asked the Opposite Party to refund the money for the damaged television, they did not refund the money. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party made believe the Complainant that television has 36 months warranty. When it was enquired by the Complainant about this, the Opposite Party behaved badly. The act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service and hence this Complaint.
3. After the admission of the Complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions.
4. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had purchased a television of TCL brand from them on 01-04-2019 for an amount of Rs.16,000/-. After it was damaged, the technician of the Opposite party checked the said television and found that it had fell on the floor and broken. When the Complainant was informed that the TV could not be replaced as it fell on the floor and broken, the Complainant lodged a false complaint with the police. The Complaint was closed as the truth was realized when the TV was checked by the SI of police. Thereafter, on 08-04-2019 the Complainant purchased another TV of the same brand. The Opposite Party had not given any guarantee that the money would be returned when the person from the company came and took over the damaged TV. If the damaged TV is examined before the commission, it would be clearly understood that the TV has fallen and broken. Despite the 36-month warranty, no company will provide a warranty against breakage. The Opposite Party never had misbehaved with the Complainant. Neither the Opposite Party nor the company is responsible for any breakage of the TV due to careless usage. So the Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.
5. On perusal of the Complaint, version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the Complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the TV?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite
Parties?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
6. Point No. 1 to 3 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
7. The Complainant had adduced oral evidence. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4. On the side of opposite party, the manager of the shop was examined as OPW1. No documents were marked.
8. On the basis of available evidence and testimony, it is understood that the Complainant had purchased two television sets from the Opposite Party. The most important thing to consider in this case is what caused to the TV. No documents are produced to show that the matter was settled before the SI of police Sulthan Bathery. The Complainant has filed the Complaint alleging defects in the said TV without having produced any expert opinion to prove that the TV suffers from problems as alleged or to establish any manufacturing defect in the TV. So the Complainant is not entitled to get any amounts towards refund of the price of the TV. The Opposite Party’s contention is that their surveyor, after inspection, found that the TV was broken as it had fallen down and it was not due to manufacturing defect. So, it is not covered under warranty. The burden of proof is on the Complainant to prove that the TV had manufacturing defect and physical damage was not caused due to mishandling. Here, the Complainant is failed to produce the TV before the Commission. The Complainant stated that the matter was settled before the SI of police, but no documents are produced to prove it. In the above circumstances, The Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party.
Hence the Complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of February 2023.
Date of filing:16.11.2019.
PRESIDENT (I/C): Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Roy. V. M. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Rakesh Balakrishnan. Manager, Kannankandy.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. dt:01.04.2019.
A2. Copy of Guaranty Card.
A3. Bill. dt:08.04.2019.
A4. Warranty Card.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT (I/C) : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
