DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of May 2019

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member        Date of filing:  30/01/2018

                                                            CC/15/2018

Viswambharan.P.N,

S/o.T.A.Neelakantan,

Pathirickal, Bunglavukunnu,                                                   -           Complainant

Kongad,  Palakkad - 678 552.

(By Advs.C.Sreekumar & K.Sindhupriya)

                                                                   Vs

1. The Manager,                                                            

Jamal Sales Corporation,

Court road, Palakkad.

2. The Service Manager,

Uniqplus, Sharp Business Systems (I) Limited,

Authorised Service Centre,

SP Arcade, Opp. Yamaha Showroom,

1^st Floor, Pattikkara Bye - Pass Road,

Vadakkanthara P.O, Chunnambuthara,                                  -       Opposite Parties

Palakkad - 678 012.

3. The General Manager,

Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Plot - 9, BITS  Tower,

Sector 125, Noida - 201 301.

(By Adv. Manoj Ambat)

                                                            O R D E R

By Smt. Shiny. P.R. President

Brief  facts of complaint

            The complainant had purchased a “SHARP LED LC-32” Television from the 1^st opposite party on 15-08-2015 as per invoice No.B001264 for an amount of Rs.28,500/-.  2^nd opposite party is the service centre and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacture of the TV.  Opposite parties had given 1 + 2 years warranty for the above said TV.  Complainant submitted that within a year of purchase television started giving problem and did not function properly.  Picture of TV was completely lost.  Then the complainant informed this aspect to 1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite party service centre took the television to their workshop for repair.   After repair they brought the television back on 19-05-2016 for which 2^nd respondent charged Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.  When the complainant questioned about the service charge the 2^nd respondent said that the PCB of the television was damaged due to lightning.  Complainant further submitted that there was no lightning around his residential area or anywhere at that point of time.  According to complainant since the defect was occurred within the warranty period and it was of the manufacturing defect, he has no liability to pay Rs.5,000/- to the opposite parties.  Even after the said repair television did not function properly. Further trouble started and picture was completely lost. The screen becomes blank after few minutes of switching on.  Therefore complainant again approached the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties on 23-08-2017 to cure the defect of the television, but they did not repair.  On repeated request, the 2^nd opposite party has taken the PCB of the television on 18-09-2017 for repair by telling that PCB of the television has to be replaced.  Then 2^nd opposite party took the television set completely on 13-11-2017.  Since the said television did not function properly, complainant and his family members were unable to have any kind of visual entertainment at home during that period.  Therefore the complainant purchased another television.  Complainant submitted that the above acts of opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to refund Rs.28,500/-  along with 18% interest per annum from the date of purchase, refund Rs.5,000/- with 18% interest per annum from 19-05-2016 till realization, pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the loss and damages caused to the complainant by the wrongful acts of the opposite parties along with cost of proceedings. 

Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties.  Notices to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were served, but they did not appeared before the Forum, hence name called, absent and set exparte. 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending the following:-

            The complaint is barred by limitation and bad for non jointer of the necessary parties. This opposite party admitted that complainant had bought a LED television set manufactured by them.   It is also admitted that the television was brought in for repair, but the defect was rectified by the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party has not charged an amount of Rs.5,000/- for just a checkup. The repair so affected was beyond the scope and was not covered as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant has paid the said amount knowing fully well that the same is not covered as per the warranty. Complainant had used the said television without much problem after the 1^st repair for more than three months.  Any problem that might have arisen was solely due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant.  The defect was immediately rectified even though the defect was caused solely due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant.  Further the defect was beyond the scope of the warranty.  But as these opposite party has great value for the well being of our customers, we immediately rectified the defect.  But to the great surprise of this opposite party, the complainant again reverted back with another complaint after a few months.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the defect so caused was only due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant.  Again the complainant reverted back with another complaint after a few months.  When we informed him that the same was beyond the conditions and the scope of the warranty, the complainant threatened that he is having political clout and further that he will teach us a lesson.  Thus only to fulfill his vendetta has the complainant preferred the above complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. The averment that the complainant was forced to buy a new television and the circumstances that led to the same is beyond the knowledge of this opposite party.  All the defects were immediately rectified even though the defects were caused solely due to the rash and negligent use of the complainant.  This opposite party is a company dealing with electronics goods and services having decades of reputed services.  We keep impeccable standards of quality of goods keeping in mind international standards.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party or there is no manufacturing defect in the TV.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with the cost of this opposite party.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents and he was cross examined as PW1. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A5.  3^rd opposite party filed chief affidavit. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

            We have perused the affidavits and documents filed before the Forum.   3^rd opposite party admitted that complainant had purchased LED television which was manufactured by them.  Ext.A2 proves that 3^rd opposite party had given 1+2 years warranty for above said TV.  On the perusal of Ext.A3 it is revealed that 2^nd opposite party repaired the television on        19-05-2016 for which they had charged Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.  According to 3^rd opposite party first defect was occurred due to lighting which will not cover the warranty. Hence they charged Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. From Ext.A1 it is clear that complainant had purchased Television on 15-08-2015.  First defect noticed on 19-05-2016 i.e within two years.  Ext.A4 service report shows that again on 18-09-2017 PCB had problem and opposite party had taken the PCB for repair.  Ext.A5 service report shows that on 13-11-2017 TV set was taken by the opposite parties for repair.  From this it is clear that first defect was neither occurred due to the lighting nor caused solely due to the rash and negligent use of the complainant as pleaded by the opposite party.  All these defects were occurred within three years from the date of purchase i.e, within 1+2 years warranty period. Under the above circumstances we are of the view that the LED TV has some manufacturing defects.  3^rd opposite party contented in their version and proof affidavit that the defect caused was only due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant. No evidence was adduced by the 3^rd opposite party to prove their contentions.  In the above discussions we are of the opinion that 3^rd opposite party has the liability to pay compensation to the complainant for selling the defective television.  As the complainant has used the above television nearly for two years we cannot direct opposite party to replace the television with new one. 

Since 2^nd opposite party has illegally charged Rs.5,000/- from the complainant for repair which was occurred within warranty period, they have the liability to refund Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  1^st opposite party being a dealer is exonerated from liability.

 Under the above circumstances complaint is partly allowed.  We direct 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony caused  along with cost of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant.  2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.

The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite parties on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.   

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of May2019.         

     Sd/-                    Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                       President

                             Sd/-

          V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                       Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  - Original invoice No.B001264 dated.15.08.2015 issued by 1^st opposite party to the

              complainant
Ext.A2  - Original Warranty card issued by opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A3  - Original receipt No.2178 dated.19.05.2016 issued by 2^nd opposite party to the

              complainant

Ext.A4  - Original service report/complaint No.6273 dated.18.09.2017 issued by 2^nd opposite

              party to the  complainant

Ext.A5  - Original service report/complaint No.6570 dated.13.11.2017 issued by 2^nd opposite

              party to the  complainant
 

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

 NIL

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1-  Viswambaran.P.N

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost     -           Rs.3,000/-