By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
-2-
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The complainant is a Civil Engineer and is the Managing Director of ABS Private Limited. He purchased a Sony LED TV bearing model 45EX720 from the shop of the second opposite party for Rs.1,05,000/-. The complainant purchased the said TV for using as a projector for the purpose of demonstration, presentation and thereby to discuss about the drafting of plan and other things to his customers. The TV has been working smoothly for 6 months and thereafter it shows complaint in it’s function and occurred lines on display board. Therefore, on 20.07.2012, the complainant informed the defects to the second opposite party. Then the employees of second opposite party inspected the TV and promised that it could be repairable or replaced with the help of experts of the first opposite party. Even though, many experts of opposite parties inspected the TV, the defects remained idle. They demanded repair charges even if there is warranty. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to repair the TV. But they not done so. Now the TV set requires replacement. Thus the complainant could not demonstrate the TV for the past four years and more. Therefore the complainant issued a lawyer notice to opposite parties on 31.12.2016. But they sent false reply without curing the defects. Thus the opposite parties are failed to perform their duty which caused
-3-
mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint to get back the price of the TV, to get Rs.17,42,000/- with 12% interest from 28.04.2017 onwards as compensation, to get Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and to get cost.
3. Opposite parties filed version which runs as follows:- They admitted the purchase of the TV by the complainant as claimed. But, they denied that the TV got complaint within the warranty period. The complainant used the same for 4 years and one month without any problem. The complainant made a complaint only on 23.02.2016. When inspected, the service engineer noticed a defect in the panel which is to be replaced. The TV had only one year warranty from the date of purchase and it was expired on 16.01.2013. Therefore, the complainant has to pay service charges. Opposite parties handed over an estimate of Rs.31,163/- for replacement of panel with service charges. But the complainant did not approve the same and demanded panel replacement without any cost. The opposite parties can initiate the repair only on approval of estimate. They are ready to repair the TV of the complainant If he paid the charge. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and complaint is to be dismissed.
-4-
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice
from the opposite parties. If so, whether the complainant is
entitled to get anything as claimed?
3. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, CW1, Ext.A1, A2, Ext.C1 and C2 from the side of complainant. No oral evidence from the side of opposite parties. Ext.B1 to B5 were marked from the side of opposite parties.
6. Point No.1:- This is a complaint related to the defect of the TV purchased by the complainant. He is the Managing Director of ABS Private Limited. He purchased the TV on 17.01.2012. The purpose of the TV is for using as a projector to demonstrate and discuss about drafting of the plan to the customers of complainant. The counsel appearing for the opposite parties contented that since the complainant purchased the TV for his business purpose, he is not a consumer and thus complaint is not maintainable.
-5-
7. Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act explains who is consumer. Simply speaking, consumer is a person who buys any goods for a consideration, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the said TV for consideration. It is also an admitted fact that he has purchased the TV not for his personal use but for his business purpose. As I already stated, the complainant is the Managing Director of ABS private limited and he purchased the TV for using as a projector to demonstrate and discuss about drafting of the plan to his customers. So, the complainant was using the TV only to promote his business. In other words, the complainant had not purchased the TV for resale or for any commercial purpose. Therefore the complainant will come under the definition. Therefore this complaint is maintainable.
8. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the TV on 17.01.2012. The allegation of the complainant is that 6 months thereafter, TV shows defects and on complaint, engineer of the second opposite party inspected the TV and noted defects in the panel. CW1 Expert also deposed that TV has defect in it’s panel. According to the complainant, though TV was inspected many times by the
-6-
service engineers of the opposite parties, they delayed the repair and demanded repair charge. But, the complainant insisted free repair since according to him, TV became defective within it’s warranty period. He has given evidence as PW1. The complainant has issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties when they delayed the repair. Ext.A1 is the copy of notice. Ext.A2 is the reply of first opposite party. Opposite parties admitted the defect in TV. But according to them, TV got complaint only after the warranty period. Ext. B4 is the copy of the warranty terms and conditions of the TV of the complainant. Ext. B4 shows that the warranty period of the TV of the complainant is one year. The specific stand taken by the opposite parties is that TV got complaint only after 4 years and one month from the date of purchase and so they are entitle to get repair charge. According to them, if the complainant ready to give the repair charge, they are ready to repair the TV. Evidently, they have given an estimate of the cost of the repair to the complainant. PW1 admitted that he got estimate. Ext.B2 is the estimate. From the evidence of PW1, it is seen that he is not ready to give the repair charge. Though according to the complainant, TV got complaint 6 months after it’s purchase, PW1 admitted that he had registered the complaint only after the warranty period. Ext.B1 is the job sheet. It shows that complainant has given
-7-
complaint only on 23.2.2016. Therefore it is evident that the TV of the complainant got complaint only after the warranty period and opposite parties are not liable to repair the TV of the complainant free of cost. Since the complainant is not ready to give the repair charge, opposite parties are not bound to repair it without any charge. So, materials available here clearly established that there is no deficiency of service from opposite parties. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.
9. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found against complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of December 2019.
Date of Filing: 24.08.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
-8-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Jayaprakash. Engineer.
CW1. Jithesh. Assistant Engineer, PWD Electronic
Department, Kozhikode.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:31.12.2016.
A2. Copy of Reply Notice. Dt:08.02.2017.
C1. Commission Report. Dt:17.10.2017.
C2. Commission Report. Dt:10.10.2017.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Retail Invoice/Bill. Dt:23.02.2016.
B2. Copy of Estimate. Dt:23.02.2016.
B3. Copy of Ressolution.
B4. Copy of Warranty Details.
B5. Copy of Repair Service Terms and Conditions.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
