This is a complaint under Section 12A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 made by one Sri Amitava Roy of address Street no. 276, DA-58-1A, P.O and P.S- New Town, West Bengal- 700156 against OP 1and against OP 2 alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practices by the OPs due to non-repairing and non-replacement of one 39 inch LED TV set and as such praying for direction upon the OPs to repair the said LED TV set back to working condition or replace or refund of the cost of the LED TV set for Rs. 27,923/- along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The averment made in the complaint is that the Complainant purchased one LED TV set of brand : Reconnect, model: LED-G3(RELEG 3901) on 28.03.2014 for a total consideration price of Rs. 27,923/- from OP 1 being seller of the product and the OP 2 being from the manufacturing company. The said LED TV set contained 2 years of manufacturing warranty and the Complainant purchased additional extended warranty of another 2 years for a total consideration amount of Rs. 30,673/- covering the period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2018. The said LED TV started mal-functioning from 28.06.2016 for which the Complainant contacted the OPs and thereafter OP 2, in consultation with their technical support team, communicated the Complainant vide e-mail dated 01.10.2016 that in order to correct the display/ moisture formation related issues with that LED TV set, the OPs would have to replace the spare parts namely the Panel. OP 2 also contended in that email that being the requisite spare parts unavailable for supplies, they had to offer refund of the depreciated value of the product as a commercial settlement by deducting 70% of the original price and offering Rs. 8,377/- as residual value, as per pre-defined policy of the said extended warranty under the name and style of RESQ Care Plan.
Being aggrieved the Complainant did not accept aforesaid offer from the OPs and filed the instant petition at DCDRC, Barasat. Notices were served upon all the OPs who filed WV denying all the charges and praying for dismissal of the case for non-joinder/ mis-joinder and various other reasons. The OPs also contended inter-alia that the said LED TV set needed repair by replacement of panel due to “display/moisture formation related issues” and being that spare parts unavailable, the alternative option was to offer the depreciated value of the product for 30%, after a deduction of 70% of the original value, in line with the service contract booklet namely Reliance RESQ Care Plan. However, the complainant claimed that the said moisture ingress in the LED TV set was due to design fault of the manufacturing Company prayed for examination of that faulty set and manufacturer’s factory or National Electronic Laboratory. Hence the complainant filed another MA seeking appointment of expert of NEL vide no. MA/65/2018 which was subsequently dismissed by DCDRC, Barasat on 25.02.2019 for not-being pressed as per petition of the complainant.
While the Complainant prayed for adopting his petition of complaint as evidence, the OP submitted that no cross-examination or evidence would be adduced. No BNA was also submitted except verbal argument. Hence the dispute was examined on its merit and available documents on record.
Main facts for determination:-
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?
- Whether there was any deficiency of services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts. The decisions with reasoning as follows:-
- On perusal of all records documents and the annexure as filed by both sides it is evident that the Complainant had purchased one LED TV brand : Reconnect, model: LED-G3(RELEG 3901) on 28.03.2014 for Rs. 27,923/- from Reliance Retail Ltd. with warranty of 2 years by the manufacturer and another 2 years of extended warranty for a total amount of 30,673/-, sold by OP 1, which are admitted facts as per the written version of the OPs. As such, there is no doubt that the Complainant is a Consumer under the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, point no. 1 is answered accordingly.
- Upon careful perusal of the records, documents and annexure on record it appears that the main crux of the dispute is that the Complainant bought a 39 inch LED TV set for a consideration amount of 27,923/- from the OP 1 on 28.03.2014 with 2 years manufacturer’s warranty along with 2 years extended warranty. The LED TV started malfunctioning which was taken up by the Complainant before the OP 1 and OP 2 sometimes during September 2016. The Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief and the documents duly marked as exhibits. The OPs have also submitted their written version along with annexure. Now the main contention is that how it can be ascertained that whether there was a deficiency in service or not. In the averments made in the complaint, the complainant had purchased a LED TV set and during the extended warranty period, the complainant got inconvenienced to watch the LED TV due to mal-functioning. After taking up with the OPs by the Complainant in their email reply dated 01.10.2016, the OP 2 admitted the requirement of replacement of the defective spare parts, but averted that they had tried to replace the requisite spare parts, though could not comply with, being the item non-suppliable or not available. The OPs also offered a commercial solution to refund 30% of the original product cost i.e. Rs. 8,377/- against the original purchase price of the LED TV Set being 27,923/-. But to substantiate the detection of the nature of defects in the said LED TV set, no Service Job sheet was submitted by the OPs in support of their claims. Be it may mentioned that a Service Job sheet is important and structured document from which the details of the job no. and date, details of previous jobs, nature of defect, person attended by/ technician or the requirement of the spare parts etc can be diagnosed. From the WV of the OPs it could not be fully relied upon the claims of the OPs as mentioned therein, in absence of such vital document like the said job service report. Hence the claim of the OPs vide the document as their reply email dated 01.10.2016 to the Complainant about findings on reasons of display/moisture formation related issues, which was contested by the Complainant, could not be adequately substantiated. Admittedly, the extended warranty is the extended service arm of the manufacturing company as per the brochure under exhibit and hence the responsibilities of the OPs cannot be relinquished. Any re-verification or re-examination of the disputed and alleged dis-function of the said LED TV set would also have not yeilded any satisfactory result to form any opinion since sufficient time of 4 years or above have elapsed due to efflux of time, making the disputed item a non-representative sample, specially after the MA petition of the Complaint got rejected as per his petition. Since the said 39 inch LED TV set is under extended warranty, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to owe it and restore its normalcy. In the stated circumstances and replying upon the documents filed by the complainant, it is proved beyond doubt that the complainant’s TV has developed defects and the OPs could not render proper services to the Complainant though it was under warranty period. Therefore we are in the opinion that the OPs are at deficiency of services and accordingly the point is answered in favour of the Complainant.
- The service providers or their authorized representatives now a days tend to replace the costly parts, once the products develops defects upon expiry of warranty period or just shark off responsibilities by claiming liquid damages etc without any authenticated report to substantiate and making the consumer liable, who are byeing products out of their hard-earned savings with a hope to enjoy and share moments with their families together. If a costly LED TV cannot give a trouble free service for at least 4-5 years at the least, no doubt the economy is hit hard.
Considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the OPs shall repair the said LED TV set, free of cost. If the OP fails to repair the same, they would replace the said LED TV with same or an equivalent or higher make or model without charging anything extra to the Complainant. The Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- which is in our opinion as exaggerated. But at the same time it cannot be denied that the harassment and loss suffered by the Complainant for which he had to knocked the door of this Forum with utmost despair by mostly appearing in person, so it would be just and proper if direction is given upon the OPs to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- and then the Justice will be served.
In the result the instant Consumer Complaint succeeds in part.
That the RBT/CC/284/2021 is allowed on contest against OP 1 and OP 2.
The Ops are directed to repair the LED TV set of Brand : Reconnect, Model: LED-G3(RELEG 3901) as mentioned in the Reliance Retail Ltd. invoiceEAN No. 8902901215458 and others all dated 28.03.2014 free of cost within 60 days from the date of this order with an extended warranty period of Two years. If the OPs fail to repair the same within the aforesaid period, they are directed to replace the TV with similar or higher model immediately with a new LED TV Set with fresh Two years extended warranty, as issued by the OPs earlier.
Ops are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant within the aforesaid period.
The transportation cost for the pick-up and delivery of the repaired/replaced TV set or new TV set, as applicable, at complainant’s residence will be borne by the OPs along with installation and demonstration.
The liabilities of the OPs are jointly and severally.
Let plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.
Dictated and corrected by
[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
