BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 29/02/2012

Date of Order : 29/09/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 113/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts leading to the complaint are the following :-

The complainant purchased a 40” LED TV from the 3^rd opposite party on 07-08-2011 at the price of Rs. 64,900/-. The electronic device went out of order within days. The 2^nd opposite party was intimated and with their assistance, the performance of the Television improved slightly. A Set-up box was installed. But that did not completely make the instrument hazzle free. Finally, the performance took a turn for the worse and screen began to show some lines only. She had made contacts with the opposite parties over e-mails for help, but those requests fell on deaf ears. The complaint in the Forum is her last resort to salvage the situation. Several reliefs including refund of price and compensation are sought in the complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :-

The 3^rd opposite party is a dealer of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not responsible for any act of omission and commission on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. One year warranty has been provided by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for any manufacturing defects of the gadget. As per the warranty, the opposite parties are only liable to repair the set not to replace the same. After inspection, it was found that the panel of the LCD was required to be replaced and was done so, on 23-12-2011. The complainant refused to accept the LCD alleging manufacturing defect and sought replacement of the same. The opposite parties offered to extend the warranty for the LCD for another year, but the same was refused by the complainant. No expert evidence is on record to prove the manufacturing defect of the same. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.

3. Despite service of notice from this Forum, the 3^rd opposite party remained absent during the proceedings for reasons unexplained. The parties have no oral evidence. Exts. A1 to A13 and B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties respectively. Heard the authorised representative of the complainant and the learned counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are the following :-

1. Whether the electronic device has manufacturing defects?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point No. i. :- The complaint unfolds the agony of a young house wife, who has purchased a costly electronic device to improve the qualify of life in her house. This is a legitimate act on the part of any house wife in any state where consumer is held absolute. Unfortunately, her dream fell short of reality when she was confronted with the bitter experience of the pet electronic, device when started giving trouble time and again. She approached the service centre and followed their instructions closely. Still the machine was not functionable. Exts. A1 to A4 stand testimony to the purchase and repairs made by the 2^nd opposite party, still she did not lose hope and through a service of e-mails (Exts. A5 to A13) she kept in touch with the opposite parties.

6. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties maintain that there is no expert evidence to show the manufacturing defect of the LED TV. According to them, as per the warranty conditions, they are only liable to rectify the defects of the machine and do the same as and when required. The opposite parties relied on a series of decisions rendered by the higher Judicial Authorities, however on which the full text has not been produced for no reasons stated either.

7. At the instance of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party caused Ext. A7 letter to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties which reads as follows :

“We were on several times requested you to arrange replacement of the Sony LED TV supplied to them as it is giving much headache frequently due to some major defects. The party strongly believes that this set is having some manufacturing defects and that is why it shows some trouble or other frequently. We fail to convince the customer that it is a minor trouble that can be rectified permanently by changing the defective part. The customer argued that our statement is baseless because their set became out of order several times. We request you to kindly arrange replacement of this set immediately as the party is behaving violently inside our showroom and making unnecessary argument in front of the other customers that will definitely damage the reputation of the product ultimately loose other customers also.

We have today received a copy of letter addressed to you that they are going to approach customer court to get back the money they paid with interest.

To avoid all these unnecessary problems we once again request you to kindly arrange replacement as a special case which will definitely bring back customer's full confidence in Sony Brand.”

8. The above admission on the part of the 3^rd opposite party, the dealer would show that the LED of the complainant did suffer from some major defects. The maxim res-ipso-liquitor squarely applies in the instant case. Though the complainant opted not to adduce expert evidence for confidence of his own in the case at hand, the major remaining defects as admitted by the 3^rd opposite party in Ext. A6 letter has not been unproved. It is to be noted that the service centre of the manufacturer is in possession of the LED, therefore, they could have very well taken steps to get an expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect of the same, which they did not to opt but to hold that the opposite parties are liable either to replace the defective LED with a new one or to refund the price to the complainant, ends of justice cannot be met otherwise. During evidence, the complainant submitted that since the opposite parties failed to replace the LED with a new one, she had to purchase another machine. According to the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 'a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget.' (Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal IV 2007 CPJ 294 (NC) ). Though that matter relates to a mobile handset, the dictum that the consumer is the same with regard to LED holds fast.

9. Point No. ii. :- The consumer herein has been dragged unnecessarily into litigation calls for redress of primary grievance and hence costs of the proceedings, which we fix at Rs. 1,000/-.

10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that,

1. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the amount as per Ext. A1 to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation.

2. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========