IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 15th day of September, 2021.
Filed on 19-03-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. P.R Sholy, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.82/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
1. Sri.Jomy Varkey 1. The Manager
S/o Varkey Attinkara Electronics
Inchakilodilchirayil house M.C Road, Chengannur
Perissery P.O. Alappuzha- 689121
Chengannur Taluk
Alappuzha- 689126 2. The General Manager
Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Registered office, A-31
2. Varkey John Mohan Corporative Industrial
S/o Varkey Estate, Madhura Road,
Inchakilodilchirayil house New Delhi- 110044
= do= (Adv. Sri.Anzil Zachariah for
(Adv.Sri. Rajan.K.Nair) Ops 1 &2)
3. The Manager
CPP Assistance Service Pvt.Ltd. P.O.Box No.826, Kalkaji P.O.
New Delhi- 110019
(Rep.by Rajesh M Nair,
Madona Care Centre, Area
Service Manager (Sony India Pvt.Ltd.)
(Adv. Sri. Rahul.D.Panicker)
4. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins Company
4th floor, G E Plaza, Airport
Road, Yerwasw, Pune-411016
(Adv. Sri.Rakesh.R.K)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
1st complainant purchased a Sony TV, KLV-32W622E from the 1st opposite party on 09.02.2018 for Rs.29,000/- which was manufactured by 2nd opposite party. It was purchased by availing a loan from 4th opposite party M/s Bajaj Allianz general insurance company. The 2nd opposite party, manufacturer had provided warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The TV was insured with 3rd and 4th opposite party.
- On 16.08.18 in the flood occurred all over Kerala the TV caused damage and it is not working. Complainant informed the matter to 1st opposite party who directed to entrust the TV with 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 2nd opposite party. They demanded an amount of Rs.11,500/- for repairing the TV. Since the TV was having one year warranty complainant is entitled to get it repaired free of cost.
- On 22.01.2019 complainants issued a lawyer’s notice which was accepted by 2nd opposite party and the replaced stating that they are not liable to undertake warranty/ free of cost repair. Complainant filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Chengannur as PLP No.1603/2018. On 18.01.2019 it was closed since 1st opposite party was not agreeable for any settlement.
- Rajesh M Nair, Area service manager, Madona Care Centre, Thiruvalla who is the authorized service agent of 3rd opposite party has given a letter to complainant stating that product is not economical to repair and hence adviced to collect the TV within 2 to 4 days. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant is entitled for Rs.32,748/- being the value of the TV. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 09.02.2018 to 1st opposite party and he had paid 14 instalments @ Rs.2332. Thus he paid a total amount of Rs.42,648/-. He is also entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental agony and pain. Hence the complaint.
- 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is bad in law as regards to this opposite party.Defect in TV is alleged without any corroborative evidence.The complaint raised by the complainant was informed to the 3rd opposite party.This opposite party was impleaded with a malafide intention and there is no cause of action exists against this opposite party.The complaint is also hit by mis-joinder of parties.There is no cause of action against this opposite party and so the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
6. 3rd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
This opposite party does not have a representative or office at any place but for Delhi and Gurgaon. Complainant purchased the TV by availing the loan from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. and they forwarded purchase details along with 3 year membership fees of Rs.5180/-. Complainant was enrolled as membership No.AC 1073811. Extended warranty insurance from M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. was also issued.
The alleged damaged TV or any claim in respect thereof was never reported to this opposite party. Claim is to be filed before the 4th opposite party. This opposite party does not have any representative at Alappuzha and has no ties with M/s Sony India Ltd. or M/s Madona Care Centre. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
7. 4th opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. This opposite party had issued an extended warranty group policy for Sony TV model KLV-32 W622E INS 18874801 serial No.3055884 vide insurance policy No.OG-18-1000-6610-00634461 valid from 09.02.2019 to 08.02.2022 and the sum assured for the policy was Rs.29,900/-. The 2nd opposite party Sony India Pvt. Ltd. had issued warranty for the product for a period of one year ie, from 09.02.2018 to 08.02.2019. This opposite party has not offered any loan for purchasing the TV.
8. The TV got damaged due to the flood caused on 16.08.2018. The TV was covered with the warranty provided by the 2nd opposite party Sony India Pvt.Ltd. for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The commencement of warranty policy issued by this opposite party is only from 09.02.2019. Complainant had not registered nay claim with this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Though on 25.11.2020 it was submitted that opposite party No.2 is filing version, no version is seen filed.
9. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.42,648/- along with interest from the opposite parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs?
10. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 from the side of the complainant. Though 3rd opposite party filed chief affidavit he was not available for cross examination. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of 4th opposite party.
11. Point Nos.1 to 3
PW1 is the 2nd complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A13.
12. On 9/2/2018 1st complainant purchased a Sony TV manufactured by the 2nd opposite party from the shop of 1st opposite party as per Ext.A1 bill. 2nd opposite party manufacturer had offered one year warranty from the date of purchase as per Ext.A2 warranty card. 1st complainant took an extended warranty for 3 years from 9/2/2019 to 8/2/2022 from the 4th opposite party. On 16/8/2018 a flood occurred at the place of residence of the complainants and the TV also was affected by the flood and the matter was informed to the 1st opposite party. They requested to contact 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party. They demanded an amount of Rs.11,500/- to repair the TV. Since the TV was having a warranty for one year provided by the 2nd opposite party manufacturer and another 3 years warranty provided by 4th opposite party, complainants were not ready to pay the amount. Though Ext.A5 Legal Notice was sent to the opposite parties the TV was not repaired or exchanged. Ext.A6 reply notice was sent stating that since there was water content inside the TV they cannot repair the same under warranty. However they informed that they will give some reduction in purchasing a new TV. Dissatisfied with the offer of 2nd opposite party the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs. 42,648/- being the price of TV including the amount paid as instalments and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. 2nd complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A13. Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 resisted the complaint by filing versions. However 2nd opposite party though on 25/11/2020 informed that they are filing version no version was filed. Opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence, Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the 4th opposite party. Though 3rd opposite party filed chief affidavit on 21/8/2021, he has not mounted the witness box.
13. The fact that 1st complainant purchased TV is not in dispute since it is proved by Ext.A1 issued by the 1st opposite party on 9/2/2018. The total invoice amount is Rs. 29,900/-. Admittedly from Ext.A2 warranty card it is seen that the product is having a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. Ext.A3 shows that complainant had taken an extended warranty from 9/2/2019 to 8/2/2022 from the 4th opposite party. Admittedly the TV was spoiled during the flood occurred almost all over Kerala during August 2018. Since the TV was purchased on 9/2/2018 it was covered by the warranty issued by the manufacturer, 2nd opposite party. Admittedly from Ext.A3 document it is crystal clear that the extended warranty offered by 4th opposite party starts only on 9/2/2019 and valid up to 8/2/2022. Since the flood occurred on 16/8/2018 it was during the warranty period of 2nd opposite party. Though on 14/2/2019 complainants sent Ext.A6 Lawyers Notice only the 2nd opposite party had replied stating that it is not possible to repair the same during warranty or exchange it since there was water content inside the TV. However it is to be noted that during August 2018 flood affected almost all over Kerala and it was not because of any negligent act of the complainants. So the complainants cannot be blamed for that. Ext.A9 shows that though PW1 filed an application before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, 1st opposite party was not agreeable for any settlement and the pre-litigation petition was closed.
14. Admittedly 1st complainant purchased the TV by availing a loan and Ext.A13 statement of account shows that he was paying instalments regularly. From Ext.A1 bill it is seen that the total invoice amount is Rs.29,900/-. Ext.A6 reply notice dated 14/2/2019 issued from the 2nd opposite party will show that the TV is beyond repair. However admittedly the TV became damaged due to flood during the warranty offered by the 2nd opposite party manufacturer. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that the TV became damaged during the warranty period offered by 2nd opposite party. Since the extended warranty of 4th opposite party starts only on 9/2/2019 and so that the TV became damaged on 16/8/2018. 4th opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainants. However from the documents produced and from the oral evidence of PW1 it is pellucid that the TV was damaged during the warranty period offered by the 2nd opposite party manufacturer. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the complainants. Since it has come out in evidence that due to the water logging the TV is beyond repairs, opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to exchange the TV or return the price of the same. Evidence on record shows that complainants were running from pillar to post to redress the grievance. They sent a legal notice for which only 2nd opposite party replied. Ext.A9 shows that though he approached the Taluk Legal Services Committee since 1st opposite party was not ready for any settlement it was closed. In the said circumstances there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and so they are liable to compensate the complainant and we are limiting the compensation to Rs.10,000/-. These points are found accordingly.
15. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is allowed in part
A) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to exchange the TV. In the alternative, complainants are allowed to realize an amount of Rs.29,900/- being the price of the TV along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint ie, on 19/3/2020 till realization.
B) Complainants are allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation from opposite parties 1 and 2.
C) Complainants are also allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost from opposite parties 1 and 2.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 15th day of September, 2021.
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Varkey John(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Invoice dtd. 9/2/2018
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card
Ext.A3 - Extended warranty document
Ext.A4 - Asset care membership document
Ext.A5 - Legal Notice dtd.22/1/2019
Ext.A6 - Reply notice dtd. 14/2/2019
Ext.A7 - Copy of Service Job Sheet
Ext.A8 - Notices from Taluk Legal Services committee
Ext.A9 - Order copy from Taluk Legal Services Committee
,Chengannur
Ext. A10 - AD cards
Ext.A11 - Letter dtd.22/3/2019
Ext.A12 - Intimation Letter
Ext.A13 - Statement of account
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Bajaj Allianze Insurance Policy Certificate
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
