BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE    

Dated this the 6^th June 2017

PRESENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D         : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                       : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.121/2013

(Admitted on 2.5.2013)

Mrs. Ranjani Varadraj,

W/o Yogivaradraj,

Aged 34 years,

R/at Radhakrishna Nagar,

Padavinangady, Mangalore.

                                                           ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri VK)

VERSUS

1. The Managing Director,

Philips Electronics India Limited,

9^th floor, DLF 9.B, DLF Cyber City,

Sector 25, DLF Phase.3.

Gurgaon 122002, Haryana State.

2. Philips Electronics India Limited,

The Estate, 4^th floor (North Wing),

(Next to manipal centre), 121,

Dickenson Road, Bangalore.560042.

3. The Proprietor,

M/s Electrolex Service Co,

Philips Mangalore Franchise,

Mahalaxmi Building Road,

Opp. Flower Market, New Field Street,

Carstreet, Mangalore 01.

4. The Branch Manager,

M/s Reliance Digital,

City Centre Mall,

K.S.Rao Road, Mangalore 01.

                                                    ….OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Sri KSNR)

(Opposite Party No.3: Ex parte)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3: Sri BGS)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

I.   1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming, refund the cost of the television of Rs.49,990/ along with 18% interest, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant, to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/ and such other relief.

2. In support of the above complaint Mrs. Ranjani Varadraj, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C7 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Meeru Gupta, (RW1) General Manager Legal of Philips India Limited, also filed affidavit evidence and answered Abhimanyu Kharb the interrogatories served on him. Mr. Rithesh Kumar, (RW2) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

       The brief facts of the case are as under:

We have perused the complaint and version of the parties. The dispute is with regard to an LED TV fell down after installation and the opposite party not responded on complain. The complainant alleges that he has purchased an LED TV from the opposite party No 4 on 08.08.2011 with a warranty of 3 years. On 17.08.2012 the said TV stopped working. On complain the opposite party after  sometime replaced the TV and installed at the complainant home on 03.12.2012 and the next day morning at 4.30 AM the said TV fallen on the ground due to wrong installation and hence the opposite parties are liable to replace which they did not and hence deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite party No 1 and 2 contends that they have once replaced the defective TV and it was installed properly in the house of the complainant but after one month of installation the complainant had informed them the falling of the TV which is due to mis handling and not of improper installation. The opposite party No 3 not appeared and placed ex parte. The opposite party 4 contended that he is the only seller and the installation is done by the opposite party No 3 on replacement for the defect and there is no role played by this opposite party No 4 who do not have any control on the happenings of the event. These are being the facts of dispute we are of the view to decide the following

POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION

          On considering the evidence on file and the documents produced by the parties the admitted facts are, the Purchase of LED TV set and it has gone defective, and the same has been replaced by the opposite parties and on replacement it was installed by the opposite party No 3 the service center. The opposite party denied that the TV fell due to wrong installation and denies that the TV fell within a day of installation as alleged by the complainant. The complainant denies that the TV fell down after one month of installation. The opposite party has not admitted the deficiency in service on their part. It is not disputed that the complainant is the consumer. Admissions and denials reconciled and the following points are taken for consideration in resolving this dispute.

1. Whether opposite parties prove that the TV set fell after 30 days from the date of installation and there is no deficiency in service on their part?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
3. What order?

On critical examination of the documents and the evidence on file and analyzing the facts of the case and after hearing the parties we answered the above points as under:

1. In the negative.
2. In the affirmative against opposite party No 1 to 3 only.
3. As per delivered order.

                                                                                              REASON

POINT NO 1: The main dispute swirl around the fact that when actually the TV set fell from the mounting. The complainant alleges that the TV set fell down on the next day of installation at 4 AM on 3.12.2014. The opposite party contends that they have received the information only after one month of installation. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties provided us the details of installation as to on which date and time the TV set installed after replacement. There is no document in the file to establish the date on which the TV was mounted and installed. However the complainant allegation is the replaced TV was mounted on the old TV stand and at the time of mounting only there was a slant erecting and the same has been informed to the opposite party No 3. But the opposite party No 3 has over looked his complaint. The opposite party No 1 & 2 claims in their version Para 7 (c) that, the replaced product was duly installed at the complainant premises. The complainant was satisfied with the opposite party as the product was installed and mounted properly. Again in evidence for the interrogatories served by the complainant to the opposite party No 1 & 2 in question no 9 it was questioned whether the opposite party can produce any supporting documents to show when the TV was replaced, the answer is in the affirmative. Also it was answered for the question no 10 that, the opposite parties have informed the complainant about the falling of the TV because of the complainant’s negligence but not for problem in mounting. Taking into consideration of all the above facts and also it is established principle that the person who delivers the product will take delivery acknowledgement and the person who receives the product normally will not be provided with the copy as the product delivered itself is the proof of delivery, hence we passed the burden on the opposite parties to prove the TV set fell after 30 days from the date of installation.

2.    The opposite parties not produced any piece of evidence to show that the TV set was fallen after a month of installation in spite presumed to be having records of installation and also in the evidence opposite party admitted that they have evidence to prove the date of installation is before 30 days of information given by the complainant. The opposite parties have not produced the delivery report or satisfactory installation report to prove their case. Also it is not denied that the same old stand was used for installing the new model TV set. When a model changes there is scope of prevailing non-compatibility for the new version which has to be presumed. Hence we are of the considered opinion that in absence of any documentary evidence to show the TV fell after 30 days of installation and there is circumstantial evidence to presume the TV have fallen within a day of installation, the TV must have fallen due to wrong installation. Hence we hold the opposite parties for deficiency in service and the point no 1 answered in the negative.

POINT NO 2: We, as per above discussion adjudicated as the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However the opposite party No 4 is the seller of the first TV which was replaced. As far as the replaced TV set is concerned the opposite party No 4 do not have any relation or any control over the happening. It is the opposite party No 3 installed it on behalf of the opposite party No 1 & 2. Hence the opposite party No 4 is discharged from the liability. The complainant prayed for the refund of the cost of the television amounting to Rs. 49,990/. For the same the complainant is entitled for with an interest at 9% per annum from the date of 03.12.2012 till the date of payment. The complainant is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/ as compensation and Rs.8,000/ towards cost of proceedings.  The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are entitled to get return of damaged TV after payment.

POINT NO 3: In the light of the above discussions and the adjudication of above points we deliver the following

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No opposite party No 1 to 3 shall pay jointly and severally the complainant an amount of Rs. 49,990/ with an interest of 9 % per annum from the date on 03.12.2012 till the date of payment and an amount of Rs. 10,000/ towards compensation and Rs. 8,000/ towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of order copy received. The complaint against the opposite party No 4 is dismissed.

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 8 directly typed by Member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 6^th June 2017)

            MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

        (T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                        (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum                D.K. District Consumer Forum

Additional Bench, Mangalore                   Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mrs. Ranjani Varadraj

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: Invoice bill dated 8.8.2011.

Ex.C2: Warranty Card

Ex.C3: Legal notice dated 19.1.2013

Ex.C4: Postal receipts 3 nos

Ex.C5: Postal acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.3.

Ex.C6: Returned envelop of Opposite Party No.2

Ex.C7: Photographs (11).

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1: Meeru Gupta, General Manager Legal of Philips India Limited

RW2: Mr. Rithesh Kumar

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Dated:  06.06.2017                             MEMBER