By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get the price of the television along with cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a LG CTV21SB3RV4AP colour television on 13.08.2012 from the shop of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is the service centre and opposite party No.3 is the service technician and opposite party No.4 is the Manufacturer of the television set. While purchasing the above television 1st opposite party guaranteed that the television is very good and long lasting one. After two months the performance of the television affected badly and started to appear green, blue and red mixed colour on the screen, consequently the pictures become very bad. Immediately the complainant informed this to the dealer and lodged a complaint. After two weeks technician had attended and informed that the picture tube is fault and the same shall be replaced. Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint and after some weeks the picture tube changed. Even after changing the picture tube, the television was not worked properly. Again the complainant informed this matter to 1st opposite party subsequently the technicians of the company came to complainant's house and took the board of the television. Thereafter no response was received from the opposite parties and on 25.05.2013 complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and demanded to change the defective television but the manager and staffs behaved in a indecent manner. Again the complainant reported this matter to opposite party No.4 ie the manufacturer of the television through email then Complainant received a reply requesting the complainant to furnish few more details regarding television. The complainant furnished all the details but so far none of the opposite parties did not take any attempt to repair or replace the television. The television still kept in his house. The complainant purchased the television on 13.08.2012 and the troubles developed within short span of time and complainant alleges that the alleged defect is due to the manufacturing defect. Hence filed this complaint to get back the bill amount with cost and compensation.
3. Notices served to opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 appeared and filed version. Opposite party No.3 the technician not appeared and not filed version before the Forum, hence set ex-parte.
4. Opposite party No.1 filed version stating that they are the dealer. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant purchased the disputed television from his shop. He also admitted that the product was under the warranty period. He is only a dealer of the product. Service matters being done by the other opposite parties. The duties of this opposite party is limited to the extent that receive a complaint and refer the same to the manufacturer for service. In this case on 12.04.2013 opposite party No.1 referred the complaint of complainant to the opposite party No.2 and as per his request one of the technician attended the product. Thereafter he has no knowledge about the further development as to its service. All the other allegations are denied by the 1st opposite party.
5. Opposite party No.2 filed version stating that they have to render post warranty service for the products of LG Electronics India Private Limited. In this case the 1st complaint was registered on 12.04.2013 and technician attended the matter and the CPT of the television was defunct and CPT was installed on 25.04.2013. Thereafter the television was worked properly and the customer was satisfied and hence the call canceled on 24.07.2013. Again another complaint was registered on 03.06.2013 with the same problems again CPT replaced but as per the request of the complainant the chassis was taken to the service station for checking. Thereafter no complaint received at the service centre. Again they stated that they have no direct relationship with the customer the charges are paid by the manufacturer. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the part of them.
6. Opposite Party No.4's version is as follows:- They stated that the complaint is not maintainable either on law or facts. The allegations in the complaint are misleading and unsustainable one. The complainant is not taken any steps to establish the alleged defects in the television as contemplated under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Again stated that on April 2013 a complaint was received alleging that the television is not working. This opposite party sent their technician to rectify the defects but complainant not allowed them to examine the television. He only demanded for refund of the amount with interest. Opposite party No.4 stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them.
7. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
8. Point No.1:- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A3 documents and MO-1 were marked. Opposite parties not adduced any oral evidence but Ext.B1 document is marked from the part of them. All the parties admitted the purchase of the television and complaint is within the warranty period. Ext.B1 reveals that there is a complaint with opposite party No.2 on 12.04.2013 ie the complaint is within the period of warranty. Ext.A3 is the email communication and reply of the company dated 25.05.2013, that also within the period of warranty. On perusal of the version of opposite party No.2 it is admitted that 2 times this opposite party attended the complaint of alleged television and the picture tube was replaced. But the complainant not taken any steps to establish the alleged defects is still existing in the MO-1. He is not taken any steps as contemplated under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the Forum could not reach a conclusion that now it is working or not. But opposite party No.4 again submitted complainant deliberately has not taken any steps to establish the defects in the alleged television. But complainant purchased the television on 13.06.2012, the opposite party No.2 admitted that within few months the CPT of the television changed twice. So this Forum is of the view that the product is not of good quality. In the complaint, complainant stated that “person without permanent income purchased this television to fulfill the wish of his children with the money earned by reducing daily expenses”. On going through the evidences this Forum found that within few months MO-1 showed major defects, hence complainant is entitled to get back the bill amount. Hence the Forum is of the view that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, he is entitled to get the price of the television with cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.4 is directed to refund the bill amount ie Rs.8,300/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Three Hundred) with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the complainant. Opposite Party No.4 can take the custody of MO-1 from the Forum. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:09.10.2013. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Jose John @ Joseph. P. J. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:13.08.2012.
A2. Owners Manual.
A3. Printout of the Email.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Daily Call Register.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
