DATE OF FILING : 26.4.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.343/2015
Between
Complainant : Binu Gopinthan,
Mukhayappillil House,
Purappuzha P.O.,
Vazhithala, Thodupuzha.
(By Advs: Sony George & K.m. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Managing Director,
Alappattu Agencies,
Matha Shopping Arcade,
Thodupuzha, Idukki.
2. The Manager,
L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.51,
Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida,
Uthar Pradesh.
(By Advs: R. Padmaraj, Ajith Kumar,
Antony Joseph Mariadas
& Shiji Joseph)
3. The Manager,
Sincere Services,
Mulloor Building,
Lissi Junction,
Kochi, Ernakulam.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that,
The complainant purchased an LCD Television on 1.3.2008, by paying an amount of Rs.28,500/- from 1st opposite party, manufactured by 2nd opposite party. While on 7.9.2013, the television showed some problem in its working and the matter was intimated to 1st opposite party. Thereafter one technician attached to the 1st opposite party, inspected the TV and found that its
(cont....2)
- 2 -
Printer Circuit Board is damaged and he assured that it will be replaced on its availability. Opposite party had to ensure the availability of its spare parts for a considerable period. Since there is no response from the part of 1st opposite party, complainant approached him directly. The 1st opposite party advised the complainant to contact the company through its toll free number. As per the advice of 1st opposite party, the complainant registered the complaint and he get docket No.RNA 13091303822. After few days, complainant again contacted through toll free number and at that time they again gave him a new docket number and advised him to contact their customer care manager for further enquiries. Since there was no response, the complainant again contacted 1st opposite party directly and demanded to get the defects cured. At that time based on the request of 1st opposite party, complainant entrusted the TV to their shop for curing the defects. Eventhough the TV was kept in the shopr of 1st opposite party for more than 2 weeks, nobody cared to cure the defects. When the complainant contacted one Shine, the technician, he replied that, they will repair it as soon as they get the spare parts. Thereafter the complainant approached another expert with this TV and on thorough check up, the expert opined that, the TV is foreign made and it is impossible to get its spare part here. Complainant further averred that the 1st opposite party had concealed this fact for more than 2 years and assured him of curing the defect.
At the time of purchase, 1st opposite party made believe that they are extending after sales prompt service without considering the warranty period, and the TV is having high standard and performance. Hence the opposite parties are bound to extend the service as they promised, eventhough it is out of warranty. Here the above said act of the opposite party is clear deficiency in service and against this, the complaint is filed for allowing the reliefs such as to direct the opposite parties to cure the defect of the TV or else return the price of the TV to the complainant and other consequential reliefs.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version separately. In their version, 1st opposite party contended that 1st opposite party is only a dealer of home appliances of various companies, including that of the 2nd opposite party. Warranty and terms of conditions are formulated and executed by the manufacturer. This opposite party has no authority or not empowered to take a decision of warranty issues. The opposite party has given all the possible helps for intimating the matter to the company and for registering the complaint with service department. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
2nd opposite party in their written version contended that this TV is purchased by the complainant on 1.3.2008. The warranty for the TV is only for a period of 1 year from the date of purchase. The alleged complaint occurred on 7.9.2013 and it occurred after 5 years of regular use which shows that there is no manufacturing defect to the TV and it has run almost for its entire life time of electronic goods. 2nd opposite party further contended that, the TV in question is 2008 model of LG company and is of completely imported parts and only assembling was being done in India. There is no suppression of facts with regard to that and there is no unfair trade practice by the respondent and the 2nd opposite party offers 25% discount to the complainant on his purchase of a new LG brand TV.
Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. Ext.P1 is the power of attorney. Ext.P2 is the copy of warranty card. Ext.P3 is the copy of owners manual. From the defense side, no oral or documentary evidence adduced.
Heard both sides.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The POINT :-We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both parties and also have gone through the relevant documents on record. It is not in dispute that the TV is purchased in the year 2008 and the complaint had occurred after 5 ½ years of its successful performance, it is also an admitted fact that 2008 model LG TV is of completely imported parts and only assembling was being done in India. Hence we cannot find any suppression of facts. Eventhough the TV was 5 1/2 years old at the time of its complaint, the authorized agencies are bound to give proper after sales service, since the complainant purchased the TV by paying an amount of Rs.28,500/- in the year 2008. Eventhough the model is changed, it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer to provide its spare parts for a considerable period. The people who purchased this type of branded electronic item, by paying high price, intended to use it for a long period. Hence the 2nd opposite party cannot evade from their liability of after sales service with lame excuses. 5 ½ years of successful performance is not a reason to reject the claim of the complainant. After selling the products, withdrawing its spare parts within a short period is only to compel the public to purchase their new products and it amounts to clear unfair trade practice.
(cont....4)
- 4 -
Here non-availability of spare parts of the alleged TV is warranting deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of 2nd opposite party, the manufacturer. Hence the complaint allowed in part. Being the manufacturer of the product, 2nd opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of this product after replacing the necessary spare parts by realizing its cost and service charges from the complainant or else the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Ammini Gopinath.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - power of attorney.
Ext.P2 - copy of warranty card.
Ext.P3 - copy of owners manual.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
