CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th February, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                     Date  of filing : 14/03/2014

CC /39/2014

Sirajudheen.M.G,

S/o.Hamsappa,  Residing at

Mayan veedu, Cheraya P.O,

Kongad, Palakkad.                                                   :        Complainant

(By Adv.M.P.Ravi)  

                                                          Vs

1. M/s.Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd,                 :        Opposite parties

    214-221 Ansal Tower, 38 Nehru Place,

    New Delhi-110019 Rep.by its Manager

    (By Adv.E.Krishna Das)

2. The Service Manager

    M/s.Sharp Authorised Service Centre,

    1^st Floor S.P.Arcade, Pattikara bye –pass Road,

    Chunnambuthara, Palakkad-678012   

    (By Adv.E.Krishna Das)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant has purchased a SHARP LED Television from M/s.Fridge House, Thrissur by paying a sum of Rs.22,700/- on 03/02/2013.  Since the television was of low quality, it did not work properly from the initial stage itself and it stopped functioning and upon informing the opposite parties it was replaced by a new one.  On 02/11/2013 a complaint occurred to the television which was informed to the 2^nd opposite party as per complaint No.M9280.  Accordingly a service technician authorized by the 2^nd opposite party came to the house of the complainant on 04/11/2013 to service the television.  He had service the television and told the complainant that there was a problem with the power supply and he has rectified the same.  When he mounted the television in the stand fixed on the wall, the complainant noticed that there are cracks in the display of the television.  Immediately it was brought to the notice of the service person and he had promised to replace the television with a new one after informing the officials.  The complainant submits that there was no cracks in the display before the repair was conducted.  Though the complainant contacted the opposite parties on several occasions so far they have not replaced the same.  Hence the complainant has issued a lawyer notice dtd.04/02/2014 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the television and there by redress his grievances.  Though the opposite parties has received the notices  they have not replaced the television.  Instead the 1^st opposite party had issued a reply stating that the warranty for the set is valid only for one year from the date of purchase and it does not cover the damages caused due to external factors.  The complainant states that the cracks on the display of the television was occurred due to the poor workmanship and improper or negligent handling of the television by the service technician provided by the 2^nd opposite party.  Since the service technician is working as per the instructions given by the 2^nd opposite party who is authorized by the 1^st opposite party, both the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.  The complainant further states that the 1^st opposite party has supplied an inferior quality product to the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party has failed to provide quality service to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence he had approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the television of the complainant with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with cost and also to reimburse the expenses incurred by the complainant. 

The notice was served to the opposite parties for appearance.  Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending the following.  The 1^st opposite party contented that the television was purchased by the complainant on 03/09/2013.  Complainant had purchased the television from a shop in Trichur on 03/09/2013 and there was absolutely no complaint till 10/11/2013.  On 11/11/2013 a complaint was registered at the call center in the name of the complainant and the nature of the complaint was that the television was not working.  Responding to this complaint the 2^nd opposite party sent one Sri.Vinod, a service engineer to attend the complaint on 12/11/2013.  At the time of inspection of the LED TV, it was found that the panel was broken and a problem was found in the power supply. The panel problem was informed and the photos of the defect and product information was collected and sent to 1^st opposite party for confirmation.  On inspection by the service engineer it was clearly found that the cause of defect was due to some external impact which can be due to various reasons like a soft ball hitting the panel or due to any other impact and it was informed to the complainant that the panel could be changed only on chargeable basis.  It was informed to the complainant that as per the terms of the warranty defect caused due to external impact cannot be passed. Moreover the warranty issued by 1^st opposite party is only for 1 year and not as claimed by the complainant.  The story of the complainant, that the technician of the 2^nd opposite party had damaged the panel is absolutely false and is made only to get the panel replaced at the cost of the company. There is absolutely no fault or deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

Both parties filed chief affidavits. Opposite parties filed application to cross examine the complainant.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Complainant also filed application for cross examination of opposite parties 1 and 2.  Complainant was direct to file interrogatory against 1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite was examined as DW1.  1^st opposite party filed answers to the interrogatory filed by the complainant.  Complainant’s documents was marked as Ext.A1-A5. Ext.B1 was marked from the part of the opposite parties.  Opposite parties witness was examined as DW2. 

Matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2.   If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

          We had perused the documents as well as affidavits produced from both sides.  In order to prove the case of the complainant he had produced the purchase bill along with warranty card which was marked as Ext.A1 and A2 respectively.  The date mentioned in Ext.A1 is 03/09/2013 .  PW1 was examined from the part of the complainant who deposed to the effect that on 04/11/2013 the service engineer named Sri.Vinod had attended the complaint of the complainant.  He had deposed that there is no manufacturing defect with regard to the alleged TV.  He had also deposed that at the time of the inspection he was not present at the site and inspection was conducted at the presence of his brother, wife and his mother.  The complainant had not examined any other witness to prove that the cracks on the display of the Television was  occurred due to the  poor workmanship and improper or negligent handling of the television by the service technician provided by the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite party(DW1) had deposed to the effect that the cause of defect can be due to various reasons such as very high voltage fluctuation or electrical mal functioning or even lightning or some external impact which can be due to various reasons like a soft ball or a blunt object hitting the panel or due to any other impact. He admits that he had inspected the TV on 12/11/2013.  At the time of his first inspection  it was found that there was a problem in the power supply.  The power supply unit was replaced on  26/12/2013 after the delivery of the article by the 1^st opposite party.  When the power supply was repaired and restored on 26/12/2013 and the LED unit was turned on it was found that there were crack on the inside panel of the LED TV.  The reason for the cause of the crack was not proved by the complainant beyond reasonable doubt.  A service technician who had attended more than 10,000 cases, and having more than 5 years of experience cannot be blamed without proper valid proof .  He is not supposed to commit such a voluntary mistake from his part .

In the light of the discussions above we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations as stated in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of February 2015.

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                   Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                        Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Bill for purchase of television dtd.03/09/2013 (Photocopy)

Ext.A2 series- Copy of warranty card with terms and conditions

Ext.A3 series – Copy of notice sent by the complainant with ack.card dtd.4/2/2014

Ext.A4- Reply issued by the 1^st opposite party dtd.20/2/2014

Ext.A5- Reply issued by the 2^nd opposite party dtd.19/2/2014

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Copy of service report

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Sirajudheen.M.H

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1-Sajith.K.A

DW2-Vinod.M

Cost Allowed

Nil.