Order-13.
Date-22/08/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that he had purchased a 39” LED Television, manufactured by OP 1 and 2 from Bigbazar E-Zone, Sealdah being OP-4. On 15th August, 2015 at Rs.32,989.67. The item was delivered on 19.08.2015 vide Invoice No.91845474 from Home Town Future Retail Ltd., Rajarhat (OP-3) though the Complainant purchased the same from Bigbazar, E-Zone, Sealdah (OP- 4). The Complainant from the very first day i.e. on 19.08.2015 noticed a defect when the Television set was switched on for the first time. Apparently there is no defect on the television but a prominent fish like background image / spot appears in the middle of the screen whenever the television set is switched on. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the manufacturer being OP 1 and 2. A Technician thereafter visited and inspected the television set but could not diagnose the root cause of the defect. He took photographs of the television screen and left with an assurance of taking up the matter with their Head Office. The Complainant thereafter repeatedly enquired about the matter to OP 1 and 2 but O.Ps.-1 and 2 did not pay any heed to it. The Complainant also asked for the service over telephone, but OP 1 and 2 failed to response and was reluctant to solve the problem. The Complainant also sent a legal notice to the OPs for replacement of the television set and OPs 1 and 2 replied that the television set was installed by an unskilled person and due to which an external damage was caused. The Complainant has alleged that he has sustained a huge financial loss and OPs trashed the expectation of the Complainant for replacing of a new television set. The Complainant alleged deficiency of service and harassment against the OPs.The Complainant has also alleged unfair trade practice against the OP and has prayed for a direction upon the OPs to replace the television set with a new one along with other reliefs in terms of prayers in the petition of complaint.
OPs 1 and 2 have contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable either in law or in fact and the Complainant has no cause of action to file this case. It is stated that there is no negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP Company. It is stated that the subject televisin set is a high quality product and is appreciated by the customer at large and in this particular case the Complainant has suppressed his own fault. It is stated that Company has settled norms regarding installation of new TV set or other related product by its own qualified technician and it is the duty and / or norms of any Distributor or Sub-distributor to register an installation call for installation of the television, but in the instant dispute, it is face on the documents that the present Complainant on or about 15.08.2015 purchassed the subject television set in question manufactured by the OPs from OP-4 and the said TV was delivered to the Complainant on 19.08.2015 and the Complainant registered and / or logged in an installation filed on 30.08.2015 from or by way of customer helpline. After receiving installation call the OP Engineer then there attended the place of the Complainant for installation of the said TV set in question but authorized Engineer was surprised to see that the said television set had already been installed by any local person who was not authorized by this OP Company at any point of time.
It is also stated that the said authorized technician of the OP Company at that material point of time observed one external damage and then there informed erring Complainant that due to installation of an unskilled person the TV set in question sustained external damage and categorically stated that this OP Company shall not be held responsible as per warranty terms and conditions, as any external damage is not covered under warranty. Statements in para 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the complaint are also denied by this OP. This OP has denied any deficiency in service. It is stated that the OP Company has discharged its service to the customer and the Complainant just to hide his own misdeed, suppressed the actual facts. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.Ps.-3 and 4 have, however, not contested the case and the case has proceeded ex-parte as against O.ps.-3 and 4.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OP is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We take up both the issues together for the sake of convenience of discussion and breavity. The Complainant has established his case has produced some documents before us viz. photocopy of Tax Invoice as against the purchase of TV Set in question, photocopy of of email, photocopy of legal notice dated 08.06.2016 and other documents on record.OP has not however, filed any document along with w.v. or otherwise.
It appears that Complainant purchased one 39” LED TV Set on 15.08.2015 at a price of Rs.32,989.67 from the retail outlet, OP 3 i.e. E Zone, situated at Bigbazar, Sealdah, Kolkata (OP-4). The said product is manufactured by Sharp Business System Pvt. Ltd., OP 1. The Complainant has alleged that the said TV was delivered and installed on 19.08.2015 and on the very day itself it was noticed that a prominent fish like background image / spot appears in the middle of the screen whenever the television set is switched on. The Complainant has alleged that the said TV set is otherwise working properly, but a prominent fish like back ground image appears in the middle of the screen when the TV set is switched on and even after inspection by the representative of OP-2 the matter remains unresoslved. The Complainant has accordingly, alleged an inherent defect on the television. OP 4 for the first time received the complaint on 29.08.2015 and informed the issue to OP 1 and 2 for necessary action. It is stated from the side of OP-1 that their authorized Engineer attended at the place of the Complainant for installation of the said TV and found that the said TV set was already installed by any local person and as a result there was external damage caused due to such installation by unskilled person. It is argued from the side of the OP that as per warranty terms and conditions, any external damage is not covered under warranty.
We find that OP 1 and 2 filed no document to show that an external damage was caused at the time of installation by unskilled person. OPs 1 and 2 have not filed any job sheet or any inspection paper of the Authorized Engineer that the product sustained external damageat the time of installations. On the contrary, find from the photocopy of the email produced from the side of the Complainant that Complainant informed the OPs that the fault with the LED is from the very first time and that whenever the TV was switched on, there is a prominent fish like dark spot in the middle of the screen and such features appears when the TV is On. The Technician from Sharp also visited and took photographs of the TV screen ( both On and Off position ) and left with an assurance of taking up the matter with their Head Office. Thereafter, the Complainant repeatedly enquired about the matter but to no result. It is stated from the side of OP 1 and 2 that an authorized technician of the OP Company attended the place of the Complainant and observed one external damage but OP 1 and 2 have failed to produce any such observation or opinion of any authorized technician of their Company. Mere seeing that the television set in question sustained external damage and such external damage is not covered under warranty does not appear to be a plausible explanation.
We find that the Complainant faced such experience on the very first day when the Television set was switched on for the first time. It is also stated that there is no defect on the television but a prominent fish like background image/ spot appears in the middle of the screen whenever the television set is switched on. The Complainant also alleged that the manufacturers i.e. M/s. Sharp thereafter sent a technician who introduced himself as Mr. Nilesh Sarkar.He visited and inspected the television but could not diagnose the root cause of the defect. He however, took photographs of the television screen, both On and Off position. The Complainant thereafter, repeatedly enquired about the matter but OP Company did not take up any step to cure the problem. OP Company also as we find did not take any positive step to eradicate the defect. OP 1 and 2 have just slept over the matter saying that such defect was caused due to installation by unskilled person, but no report of technician that the product sustained crash or damage at the time of wrongful installation as alleged is forthcoming before us. It is not also mentioned why the O.Ps. did not visit the place of complainant to install the subject TV immediately when it was purchased on 15/06/2015 and / or till the complainant lodged the complaint. We think that OPs 1 and 2 have been deficient inservice. The Complainant purchased the TV set could not use it. We think that OPs 1 and 2 being the manufacturer are liable to replace it.
Consequently, the case merits success.
We find that OP 3 and 4 is a retailer. OP 3 and 4 are not obliged to provide after sales and service and / or able to replace the product as desired by the Complainant. OP 3 and 4 took necessary step by referring the Complaint to the manufacturing Company i.e. OP 1 and 2. We think that there is no latches on the part of the OP 3 and 4 and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP 3 and 4 as such, nor there is any negligence. In result the case succeeds as against OP 1 and 2 being the manufacturer.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP 1 and 2 and dismissed ex parte against OP 3 and 4.
OP 1 and 2 are directed to replace the subject 39” LED TV with a new one with fresh warranty within one month from the date of this order. Complainant is directed to handover the subject TV set to the OP 1 at the time of replacement.
OP 1 and 2 are also directed to pay an amount of RS. 10,000/- to the Complainant towards litigation cost within the said stipulated period
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
