IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 15th day of March, 2022
Filed on 28.06.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.159/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Anil.A(service Pensioner) 1. L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd
Hari Nivas Plot No. A.5
Ponnadu.P.O MICD RANJAN GAON
Mannancheri Grama Panchayat TAL. SHIRUR, PUNE-412220
Ward. No.1, Pin 688538 INDIA, Regd. Office
(Adv. Jose Y James) A Wing (3rd Floor)
D3 District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
2. The Manager,
Subsidiary Central Police Canteen,
Alappuzha, Kerala
( Adv. A.K.Rajasree for Ops)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he is retired from BSF. He used his canteen card and purchased an LED TV for an amount of Rs.36,595.34/-on 2.1.2019from the 2nd opposite party, police canteen, the same is manufactured by the 1st opposite party company. The warranty has been provided for 2 years. The defect was found in the TV within 3 months of its purchase ie, on 21.3.2019. The defect is that when watching the TV image is distorted with lines. The 1st opposite party’s technician detected a screen crack and informed that the complainant would bear the repairing expenses of Rs.20,000/- since the panel repairing is not covered in the warranty. Hence the complainant approached the commission for the following reliefs
1. Direct the opposite parties to refund or replace the disputed TV.
2. Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The first opposite party contended that as per the terms and conditions, of warranty it is specifically mentioned that panel crack will not come under warranty. So the complainant has to pay the charge for repairing. Owner’s manual was given to the complainant when he bought the TV and it was stated that free service is not available for which items. So there is no cause of action against this opposite party. This complaint is only to harass this opposite party. Hence it is to be dismissed with cost.
3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant used his canteen card and purchased the disputed TV on 2/1/2019 from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the branch cum distribution centre of the Central Police Canteen TVM. It is contended that company products are available in 2nd opposite party from master canteen as per order of the government. Only sale of the same is done by 2nd opposite party. Therefore the issues related to warranty and service of the product sold through the 2nd opposite party are taken off by the respective company. Therefore, they have no responsibility of the allegations made by the complainant.
4. Points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed TV?
2. Whether opposite parties committed deficiency of service ? If so what is the quantum of compensation?
3. Reliefs and costs?
5. PW1 and PW2 were examined from the side of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 and C1 were marked. Witness of the 1st opposite party was examined as RW1. 2nd opposite party did not adduce any evidence. Thereafter we heard both sides.
6. Points Nos. 1 and 2:-
Ext.A1 is the delivery statement dt.2.1.2019, issued by the 2nd opposite party, Ext.A2 is the receipt and Ext.A3 is the owner’s manual of the disputed product.
Admittedly the panel crack is not rectified free of cost. It is also admitted that the defect occurred within the period of warranty.PW2, an expert commissioner was examined the disputed TV and filed Ext.C1 report.PW2, the commissioner reported that not seen any physical damage to the TV and it has had panel damage since lines are visible on the screen when it is switching on.
RW1, witness of the 1st opposite party deposed that he was present at the time of inspection by the commissioner and he found physical damage. Further RW1 deposed that even though, the display was broken and the same is not suffering any manufacturing defect. But nothing is before us to substantiate said contention. Moreover, the service engineer, who inspected the TV at the initial time is not examined as a witness and the inspection report is not seen filed. The very same point is discussed in the decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in MRFLimited Vs. SandipanKishanraoDeshmukh and another 1 (2008) CPJ – Wherein the Fora below allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to replace the disputed tire or refund its price. Against which appeal filed before National Commission. The opposite party filed their version with report of their sales executive which favouring them but it is found that opposite party were not filed by way of evidence to prove the said report. Therefore found the illegality or errors in the orders passed by Fora below hence dismissed said appeal. In this case the expert commissioner did not find any external mark. At the same time the defect of the TV is not disputed by the 1st opposite party. It is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that there is any external damage to the TV which is possible at the hand of the customer. It is understood that PW2 is an Electronic Diploma holder having 20 years of experience in that relevant field. It seems that the 1st opposite party did not take any steps to set aside Ext.C1 report. PW2 deposed that if the lines are found within 2 years after purchasing that shows the low quality of the product. He pointed out the TV showing faulty display with stripe by switching on the TV and there is no visible mark shown as to external damages.Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that 1st opposite party has evade from their responsibility that they have assured to their customer. The complainant is requiring repairs of said TV within short span of time that itself shows that 1st opposite party has supplied defective goods but they have not given proper service and hence it is indicating manufacturing defect. In view of the above discussions we find that the 1st opposite party has committed deficiency in services. It seems that the product has kept idle for one year. It is found the product has been kept idle for one year such a circumstance order for repairing the product is not feasible hence we are inclined to order refund the price of the TV. The 2nd opposite party, the dealer, they have no responsibility to refund the price of the TV. Moreover it is found that 2nd opposite party is the subsidiary of the Central Police Canteen and they have supplied the products as per Go Ms . No. 176/2011 Home dtd. 8/8/2016. Therefore we are not fixing any liability to the 2nd opposite party
We have found that the 1st opposite party has committed deficiency in service since they have failed to provide service to the complainant. Hence complainant is entitled to get compensation from the 1st opposite party.
Point No.3:-.
Accordingly, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:-
- Opposite party No.1 is liable to refund Rs.36,595/-(Rupees thirty six thousand five hundred and ninety five only) being the price of the disputed TV, to the complainant, failing which said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till realization.
- The 1st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 15thday of March, 2022
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Anil.A (complainant)
PW2 - Shalimon.P(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Delivery Statement
Ext.A2 - Delivery statement and Cash Receipt
Ext.A3 - Owners Maunal
Ext.C1 - Expert Report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Rw1 - Vinu Kirshnan(witness)
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
