Date of Filing:29/03/2014

    Date of Order:06/01/2017

ORDER

BY SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for  direction to the O.Ps to repair the Television or in the alternative to replace the television with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the Television and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service along with cost of the litigation.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased the 47 inch LCD Plasma Television manufactured by the 1^st O.P on 18/9/2009 from the 2^nd O.P for a sum of Rs.79,550/-.  On 15.9.2013 all of a sudden, there was visibility problem over 75% of the screen in the Television.  Immediately the same was reported  to the 2^nd O.P and they informed the complainant that, it there is any problem with the television within five years from the date of purchase the O.p.No.1 i.e. manufacturer is liable for the same and advised the complainant to approach the 1^st O.P. Accordingly complainant approached the O.P.No.1 and lodged the complaint bearing No.RNA131024075597.  After the complaint, an engineer from the O.p.No.1 inspected the television and informed that the panel board has to be replaced.  Accordingly complainant requested the O.P.No.1 to replace the panel board.  Inspite of the request by the complainant and there was no response from the O.P.No.1.Thereafter O.P.No.1 was contacted again by the complainant and request has been made for providing the panel board and advised the complaint to lodge another complaint. Accordingly the complainant lodged another complaint bearing RNA No.131101035504 with the 1^st O.p. Thereafter another engineer by name Sri Milind inspected the T.V. and informed the complainant that panel board has to be replaced or in the alternative the 1^st O.P.  will refund 40% of the purchase price of television and the said engineer took away the original bill and obtained the signature of the complainant assuring the refund. Later  the said engineer informed over telephone only Rs.15,000/- could be refunded.  The complainant requested O.P.No.1 to replace the panel board or to refund 40% of the purchase price.  However the 1^st O.p did nothing  for two months and thereafter informed the complainant since the spare parts of the LCD are not available the complainant wait for two more days. After persistent followup the O.P.No.1 sent another engineer and he also inspected the television and advised to replace the panel board and also stated that the spare parts were not available and advised the complainant to receive the refund offered by the O.p.No.1.  Again one Kandaswamy informed the complainant that only Rs.27,840/- could be refunded  for the which the complainant agreed after again the same person informed the complainant that only Rs.11,932/- could be refunded.  Thereafter there is no response from the 1^st O.P. to refund any of the assured amount again complainant wrote a letter dated 14.2.2014 to the O.p.No.1 but O.p.No.1 did not come forward either to repair or replace the television or to refund the amount. Hence the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1  and filed the present complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of notice O.Ps appeared through their counsel and filed its version.  In the version O.Ps No.1 and 2 contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant herein is not a consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (D) of the Act. Since there is no consumer dispute between the O.Ps and complainant and as such the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect in the said LCD TV nor the said product is within the warranty period as such the above is not maintainable.  Further the complainant lodged complaint bearing RNA No. RNA131024075597    dated 24.10.2013 with the 1^st O.p over telephone, on engineer from1st O.p inspected the television and informed the complainant that the panel board has to be replaced and given estimation to the complainant, but complainant has not approved for the same and thereafter repeated intimation to the complainant was sent by the 1^st O.p to replace the panel board and thereafter when the O.p.No1. again contacted the complainant the complainant informed that a request has been made for providing panel board and advise the complainant to lodge a complaint.  Accordingly the complainant lodged a complaint bearing No. 131101035504 dated 1.11.2013 the 1^st O.p. on request of the engineer was made to transfer the said complaint to the head office  to get panel board  as he approved for the replacement of the panel board. And further the allegations of the complainant regarding refund of the amount and non-availability of the spare parts are denied as false by O.p.No.1.  The O.P.No.1 further states that, the said LCD TV is out of warranty and there is no obligation on the part of the O.P.No.1 to rectify the defect which arose after lapse of warranty period and also there is no availability of the panel board to replace the same. As the said TV is out of warranty and O.p.No.1 cannot rectify the defect in the said TV as it is out of warranty.  Hence contended that, there is no deficiency in service and on other ground prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.

5.      On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration are:-

                                (A)   Whether the complainant has proved

                     deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

(B)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)   What order?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Negative.

POINT (C):       As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT No.(A) & (B):-

7.     It is allegation of the complainant he has purchased a LCD Plasma TV from the 2^nd  O.P on 18.9.2009 manufactured by the 1^st O.P. After a lapse of five years from the date of purchase i.e.15.9.2013 all of a sudden the visibility problem started persisting in the said T.V. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1^st O.p to rectify the defects and made several correspondence with the O.p.no.1 by lodging three complaints bearing RNA No. 131024075597, RNA No.131101035504 and another complaint bearing No. 140106083346 and the engineer of the O.p.No.1 inspected the television and informed the complainant that the panel board has to be replaced.  Thereafter the 1^st O.P sent their engineer to inspect the engineer and the said engineers informed the complainant to replace the panel board and told the complainant to lodge a complaint with the 1^st O.p. to get the approval from the O.P.no.1 to get a new panel.  But the complainant has turn around and made allegations against the O.p.No.1 stating that they offered to refund 40% of the purchase price at one time  and again told to get Rs.11,932/- for the replacement and the allegations made by the complainant is not supported with  any documentary proof to show that O.P.No.1  has offered to refund 40% of the purchase price as there was non-availability of the spare parts.  Further the warranty card produced by the complainant clearly reveals that, the warranty period covers only for one year and all parts from the date of purchase of the product.  But in the present case on hand the complainant has purchased the said TV during the year 2009 but the problem arose in the said TV after the lapse of five years and it is out of warranty. As the said TV is out of warranty  O.P.No.1 states that they cannot replace the panel board without warranty and as such  O.p.no.1 shows its inability to replace the same.  When there is no warranty how can the complainant expect the O.P.No.1 to replace the panel board and alleged deficiency in service against the O.p.No.1. Furthermore, the complainant has also not produced any cogent evidence to show that there is warranty of the said TV is for five years and also not also not produced any clinching evidence to convince deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and hence complainant is not entitled for the refund of the amount or any other relief.  Only on the basis of the allegations the Forum cannot come to conclusion and it needs evidence but the complainant has utterly failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove his case and as such we come to conclusion that, complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.  Accordingly we answered these points partly in the Negative.

POINT No. (C):- 

8.     On the basis of the findings  given on the  point No. (A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 6^th Day of January 2017)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak