Karnataka

Kolar

CC/106/2016

M.Nachegowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20/12/2016

Date of Order: 17/07/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 17^th DAY OF JULY 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 106 OF 2016

Sri.M.Nachegowda,

S/o. Late Muniyappa,

Aged About 45 Years,

R/at: Hosa Matnahalli Village,

Sugutur Hobli, Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. C.R.Krishna Murthy, Advocate)           ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

1) The Managing Director,

Micro Max No.28, 20^th Cross,

Ejipura, Viveknagara,

Bangalore-47.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. T.G.Byregowda, Advocate)

 

2) M/s. Ravi Enterprises & Dealers,

Doddapete, Near KSRTC Bus Stand,

Kolar Town, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. T.R.Jayarama, Advocate)            …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter refereed in short as “the Act”) seeking issuance of directions against the OP No.2 to deliver new TV or in the alternative to pay back the entire amount paid by the complainant and to pay damages along with interest.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, OP No.2 is the dealer of Micro Max company/OP No.1.  On 15.11.2015 complainant purchased a Micro Max LED TV bearing Model No.50FHD, ticket No.KPR-201016 and 110033247 for Rs.33,076/- and the same is under warranty for two years.  The complainant further submitted that, the above T.V. worked only for two months, after that the said LED T.V. was not working.  Hence complainant hand-over the said TV for repair to OP No.2, but in spite of several approaches and requests OP No.2 neither returned the said TV nor paid the amount back to the complainant.  Constrained by the said acts of the OP No.2 on 10.11.2016 complainant issued legal notice to both the OP Nos.1 & 2 through RPAD, but OP No.1 refused to deceive and OP No.2 failed to comply.  Hence this complaint.

 

(b)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following Xerox copies of the documents:-

(i) Original Cash Bill

(ii) Service Report

(iii) Warranty Card

(iv) Legal notice

(v) Postal Receipt & Acknowledgment

(vi) Unserved envelop cover

03.   In response to the notice served, both OP No.1 & 2 put their appearance through their learned counsel and filed their objections by resisting the claim in toto:-

 

(a)    In the version the brief contention of the OP No.1 is that, the allegations with respect to purchase of LED TV from OP No.2 and after taking delivery it worked only for two months, thereafter complainant handed-over the LED TV to OP No.2 for service and in spite of several approaches and requests made by the complainant OP No.2 had not returned the same nor paid the money back to the complainant are all not within the knowledge of this OP No.1.  It is true that, OP No.2 is the dealer of OP No.1.  Further OP No.1 has submitted that, with regard to the allegations made in the complaint that, on 10.11.2016 complainant issued legal notice and OP No.1 has refused to deceive the said notice is false.  This OP No.1 is not at all a necessary party to this complaint and in fact the transactions took place only between the complainant and the OP No.2.  This OP No.1 is only a dealer of Micro Max Company and in any angle this OP NO.1 is unnecessary party.  So contending, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs. 

 

(b)    The brief contentions made in the version filed by OP No.2 is that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The allegations made at Para-2 with regard to purchase of Micro Max LED TV bearing Model No.50FHD and call ticket No.KPR-201016 and 110033247 on 15.11.2015 by the complainant for Rs.33,076/- under warranty of two years are true and correct.  The further allegations made in the complaint that, after taking delivery of the said LED TV, it worked only for two months, thereafter complainant handed-over the TV to the OP No.2 service center, but in spite of several approaches OP No.2 had not returned the said TV nor paid back the amount and OP No.2 is dodging the matter and not at all sent the LED TV to the company are all denied as false.  The actual thing is that, after complainant handing-over the said LED TV to the service center of the OP No.2, till today complainant had not visited to the service center nor to the OP No.2’s show-room to take back the said TV.  The OP No.2 has suitably replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant.  The said LED TV was damaged only due to the Back light burn due to high voltage, even though it is not liable to repair under warranty, on humanitarian grounds OP No.2 has made repair of the said TV.  But in spite of that, complainant has filed this false complaint with an intention to grab money from this OP No.2 or to get another new TV.  So contending, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

 

(c)    Along with version OP No.2 has submitted following Xerox copy of the document:-

(i) Service Report

 

04.   On 29.05.2017 counsel appearing for OP No.1 has filed Memo stating that, their objections may kindly be treated as their affidavit evidence.  On behalf of OP No.2 one Sri. M. Ravishankar, S/o. Muninachegowda, has put in his affidavit evidence on 10.04.2017 and on 29.05.2017 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted affidavit evidence of complainant by way examination-in-chief. 

 

05.     On 23.05.2017 counsel appearing for OP No.1 has filed written arguments of OP No.1.   Heard oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both sides.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2?

(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint?

(C) What order?

07.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):- In the Affirmative

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

                                for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

08.   It is an admitted fact that, on 15.11.2015 complainant had purchased one Micro Max LED TV bearing Model No.50FHD, call ticker No.KPR-201016 and 110033247 by making payment of Rs.33,076/- to the OP No.2.  In this regard while taking delivery of the said LED TV the OP No.2 has issued invoice and warranty card pertaining to the said LED TV for two years. 

 

09.   Now the main allegation of the complainant is that, after taking delivery of the said LED TV the complainant was used only for two months, thereafter the above said T.V. was not working.  Hence complainant handed-over the said LED TV to the service center of the OP No.2 to conduct repair, but till today the OP No.2 had not return back the TV nor paid the amount. 

 

10.   Per contra, OP No.2 submitted that, there is no manufacturing defect in the above said LED T.V.  The said L.E.D. TV was damaged due to high voltage and to substantiate this condition OP No.2 has filed service report.  On perusal of the service report it clearly shows that, Problem Reported is “No Back Light” and the fault found back light burnt due to high voltage.  Hence it is clear that, the above said TV was damaged due to high voltage.  Hence we come to the conclusion that, there is no manufacturing defect in the above said TV.  Further the complainant alleged that, the OP No.2 had not returned back the said TV or not paid the amount to the complainant.  The OP Nos.1 & 2 had firmly offended the allegations stating that, the complainant had not visited the Ops service center or the show-room and this was informed to the complainant in the reply given to the legal notice dated: 02.12.2016.  But the Ops have not submitted any postal acknowledgment in respect of issuance of reply notice to the complainant. Hence the reply notice submitted by the Ops cannot be accepted.  Hence we came to the conclusion that, the Ops have not repaired the said TV, only after filing of this petition the Ops have filed this version stating that, they have repaired the above said TV, but the complainant has not visited the service center to tack back the said TV.  However the complainant also failed to show that, there is a manufacturing defect in the said TV as the problem arised in the said TV is due to high voltage.  Hence it is just and proper to direct the Ops to handover the above said LED TV in good condition to the complainant within 01 month from the date of pronouncement of this order, failing which, the Ops shall refund the amount of Rs.33,076/- to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and accordingly we answered point (A) & (B) in the affirmative.

 

POINT (C)

11.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

 

02.   The OPs are directed to handover the above said LED TV in good condition to the complainant within 01 month from the date of pronouncement of this order, failing which, the Ops shall refund the amount of Rs.33,076/- to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization.

 

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 17^th DAY OF JULY 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT