IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.139/2012 (Filed on 27.08.2012)
Between:
Vinayan. V.K.,
Valavil House,
Nariapuram.P.O.,
Vallicode Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. V. Rajesh) …. Complainant
And:
1. The Managing Director,
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
(Regd. Office), Plot No.51,
Udyogvihar,
Surajpur – Kasna Road,
Grater Noida – 201 306 (UP).
(By Adv. Biju Hariharan)
2. The Manager,
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
M.G. Care Centre,
Pathanamthitta.P.O.
3. The Manager,
Cheruvazhathadathil Agencies,
Central Junctiion, Kaipattoor. …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased an LG LCD TV, model LCD 22LK311, bearing Serial No.106PLBLO 32373 from the 3rd opposite party on 02.09.2011 for an amount of Rs. 14,990. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre. The said T.V began losing clarity after sometime from the date of purchase. So, on 13.06.2012, he entrusted the T.V. to the 2nd opposite party for effecting repairs as per the instructions of the 3rd opposite party. As per the terms of warranty given by the 1st opposite party there is one year warranty for the product. After an elapse of 71 days the 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant that Rs. 6,500 should be paid for effecting repairs. The said demand is a clear violation of the terms of warranty and the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties either to repair the TV free of cost or to replace the said TV along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000.
3. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions: The 1st opposite party admitted the sale of the TV and the one year warranty. On getting the intimation regarding the complaints of the TV from the complainant a technician visited the house of the complainant and made a detailed check up and found that the panel of the said product was broken with some external pressure and may be by the hit of a heavy object like ball. As it was definitely a case of customer abuse the officials of the opposite party informed the complainant that he had to pay the cost of the repairs. Though the complainant accepted the same he did not turned up and preferred this complaint. The complaints found does not covers warranty and the said complaint is not a manufacturing defect. So there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service from the 1st opposite party. With the above contentions, the 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant.
4. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that the LCD TV purchased by him become defective within the warranty period which was not repaired by the opposite parties and also they demanded Rs. 6,500 from the complainant for repairing the said TV. The complaint of the TV was caused during the warranty period. So opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects of the TV free of cost as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The non-repairing of the TV and the demand of repairing charges by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the owner’s manual, in which the warranty card is attached, issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the sale bill No.699 dated 02.09.2011 for Rs. 14,990 issued by the 3rd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the job sheet dated 13.06.2011 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the 1st opposite party is that the complaints seen in the TV is that the panel of the product was broken which was occurred due to mishandling of the TV by the complainant. The probable cause of the said mishandling is due to the hit of an heavy object like a ball. The complaints due to the mishandling does not covers warranty and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint as the 1st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. With the above contentions, the 1st opposite party argued for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in this case. But they have cross-examined PW1.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties and on a perusal of the materials on record, the only question to be considered is whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. According to the complainant, opposite parties committed deficiency in service by demanding repairing charges within the warranty period whereas the contention of the opposite party is that the defects noticed in the product was caused due to the mishandling by the complainant and the warranty benefits are not allowable in such cases.
12. On a perusal of the available materials on record, it is seen that there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the TV and the warranty offered by the opposite parties and the complaints of the TV was occurred during the warranty period. The only dispute is whether the alleged complaints of the TV falls within the warranty conditions or not. The allegation of the opposite party is that the defect noticed was occurred due to the mishandling of the TV by the complainant. But they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions. Their argument is that the panel board was broken due to some external pressure like hit of a heavy object like a ball on the TV. But as per Ext.A3 job sheet issued by the 2nd opposite party, no defect is seen recorded in the prescribed column. None of the entries made in Ext.A3 also does not support the contention of the 1st opposite party. So it is very clear that the allegation of mishandling by the complainant is baseless and such a contention was raised only for the sake of an argument. Therefore, we find that the contention raised by the 1st opposite party is not sustainable and hence the allegation of the complainant stands proved. So we find that the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed either to rectify the defects of the T.V. or to replace a new TV of the same quality and brand of the complainant’s TV free of cost along with compensation of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the T.V. and compensation and cost ordered with 12% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till the whole realization from opposite parties.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of March, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
A1 : V.K. Vinayan
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Owner’s manual in which the warranty card is attached,
issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A2 : Sale bill No.699 dated 02.09.2011 for Rs. 14,990 issued by
the 3rd opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Job sheet dated 13.06.2011 issued by the 2nd opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Vinayan. V.K., Valavil House, Nariapuram.P.O.,
Vallicode Village, Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) The Managing Director, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
(Regd. Office), Plot No.51, Udyogvihar,
Surajpur – Kasna Road, Grater Noida – 201 306 (UP).
(3) The Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
M.G. Care Centre, Pathanamthitta.P.O.
(4) The Manager, Cheruvazhathadathil Agencies,
Central Junctiion, Kaipattoor.
(5) The Stock File.
