IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 31st day of August, 2017
Filed on 26.09.2016.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.313/2016
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:
Smt. Beena 1. The Managing Director
W/o Jayan Sharp Business Systems(India) Ltd.
Ayyanamparambu House 214-221, Ansal Tower 38
Ezhupunna.P.O Nehru Place, New Delhi -110019
Cherthala, Alappuzha,
2. The Managing Director
Fridge House Retail (p) Ltd
37/246, B5, Kaloor
Kadavanthra Road, Ernakulam
3. The Manager
Sharp TV Service Centre
Kasthoori Building
Near Valiya Chudukadu
Thiruvanmbadi, Alappuzha - 688003
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a LED TV manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.23000/- on 1/11/2015 from the 2nd opposite party. The opposite party assured 3 years warranty for the product. The 2nd opposite party delivered the TV to the house of the complainant and installed the same and it was working. The product became defective on 22/7/16. On the next day the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party and intimated about defect and registered a complaint but the 2nd opposite party has not attended the complaint. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party many times and after a week the 2nd opposite party gave phone number of 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. Thereafter the complainant contacted 3rd opposite party directly and intimated about the defect. The 3rd opposite party inspected TV but failed to repair the same. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the product as the defect arose within warranty period. The opposite parties were not made any earnest effort to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the TV along with compensation and cost.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties , 2nd opposite party did not appeared before the Forum and hence 2nd opposite party was set exparte. Opposite party 1 and 3 represented and filed version.
3. Version of the 1st opposite parties as follows:-
It is true that complainant had purchased a TV on 1/11/2015. The 1st complaint was registered after one year of purchase and it was duly attended by the service engineers. On inspection, there were multiple lines or black spots on the screen of LED, which displayed due to external cause/ impact. Our Authorized service centre explained the whole facts to the complainant that the panel has been damaged due to external impact and cannot be replaced free of cost. The company would further like to submit that complainant by himself in complaint copy agree that TV suddenly stop functioning while watching. Manufacturing defect cannot be arise a sudden, TV is properly working and only after some external impact LED panel destroy, as there were issues before that. There was no manufacturing defect in the LED as stated by the complainant. It was updated to complainant at the same time that any damages due to external reason are not covered under warranty as per terms/ conditions mentioned in the warranty card. Hence LED panel will be replaced on chargeable basis. It is further declared that the company has given its best services based on the terms and conditions of warranty for the LED TV of the complainant. Hence the contents in his complaint are not true and correct and the demand of replacement or any other claims are not acceptable to us and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced as Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 were marked. An expert was appointed by the Forum and the report of the Expert commissioner was marked as Ext. C1. And 1st opposite party was examined as RW1.
5. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entailed to get relief as prayed for?
6. Issues 1 and 2 :- The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a TV from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 23,000/- on 1/11/2015. The product has 3 years warranty and during the warranty period the product is became defective. The defect has been intimated to the opposite parties, even though 3rd opposite party attended the complaint but they failed to rectify the defect. Since the product was defective during the warranty period and the opposite parties could not rectified the defect the complainant requested to replace the product but the opposite parties failed to do so. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to Ext.A3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Retail invoice dated 1/11/2015. From this it can be seen that the complainant purchased TV from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.23,000/-. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. Ext.A3 is the job sheet. The specific case of the complainant is that the TV was damaged within one year from the date of purchase and the product is under warranty. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect free of cost. But the opposite parties contended that even though the product is under warranty the defect caused to the TV is a physical damage and which will not be covered under warranty so they are not liable to repair the product free of cost. According to the complainant there was no such physical damage. In order to prove the same a commissioner was appointed by the Forum and he filed report and was marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 report it is clearly stated that the product has no physical damage and the defect due to manufacturing defect. Ext.C1 would show that there was no physical damage to the TV. So the opposite parties' contention will not sustain. From the documents it is clear that the product is under warranty and the defect occurred to the TV has not rectified so far. So the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief. Since the complainant was dragged to the Forum unnecessarily the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience caused and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund price of TV Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) towards cost. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount Rs. 23000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 31st day of August, 2017.
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Beena (witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission Report.
Ext.A1 - Retail Invoice Dtd.1/11/2015
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card & Owners Manuel
Ext.A3 - Job Sheet.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Asok.S.Nair (Witness)
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Comped . by:-
