DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th  day of August  2021

Present   : Sri.Vinay Menon.V  President

                : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                     Date of Filing: 10/12/2018

CC/167/2018

1.Raji.C

  Sivaraman Nair (Late)

  Sreelakshmi House,

  Karimba Post, Idakkurissi,

  Mannarkkad – 678 597

2.Rajeev C

   Sivaraman Nair (Late)

  Kappadam Pazhaya Kanam,

  Karimba Post, Idakkurissi

  Mannarkkad – 678 597                                             -                       Complainants

                                                                        Vs

1.Manager

   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.

   GE Plaza, Airport Road,

  Yerwada Pune – 411 006

(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)

2.Manager

   Kochukudiyil Agencies

   Opp.Mannarkkad Busstand                                                 -                       Opposite parties  

 (By Adv.Rajesh.M)

O R D E R 

By Sri.Vinay Menon. V,  President

Brief  facts of the complaint.

1. The complainant aver that they had purchased an ONIDA 40” LED TV from the 2^nd opposite party. At the time of purchase they had availed an extended warranty from the 1^st opposite party on payment of requisite premium. On 24/8/2018 the TV developed some complaints and the same was registered. When the service personnel was informed of the cover of extended warranty, he made enquires and informed  that the name of the TV shown in the extended warranty sheet is wrong. They contacted the 1^st opposite party and waited for about three months, but to no avail.  They had expend Rs.8600/- from out of their own pocket and got the TV repaired. Aggrieved by the conduct of the 1^st opposite party in not honouring the extended warranty terms and conditions this complaint is filed seeking return of Rs.8600/- and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.Opposite parties entered appearance. The first opposite party filed version contending inter alia their ignorance regarding the mode of payment made by the complainant. Further they stated that the repudiation was based on the fact that the insurance cover was for a period of  two years from 23/09/2018 to 22/9/2020. Thus the date on which the complaint developed, i.e.24/8/2018 was outside the period covered under the extended warranty conditions.

3.From a reading of the pleas in the compliant and as well as in the version the following issues are raised for consideration.

1. As on 24/8/2018 whether the TV of the complainants was covered under the extended warranty policy issued by the first opposite party.
2. Is there deficiency in service  on the part of 1^st opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainants ?
3. Compensation and cost if any ?

4.The first complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of opposite parties Ext.B1 was marked.

Issue No.1

5.Crux of this complaint lies in answering the first issue. Ext.A2 is the extended warranty policy schedule. Name of the insured is shown as Ms.Raji C, the first complainant herein. The period of insurance is shown as 23/9/2018 00:00: to 22/09/2020 midnight. The Policy is issued on 25/9/2016. Both the parties admit that Ext.A2 is the extended warranty policy with regard to the TV purchased by the complainant. Admittedly, there is a mistake that has  crept-in in Ext.A2 i.e. name of the manufacturer is shown as Panasonic India Ltd. whereas the TV purchased by the complainant is of ONIDA Industries. But this error is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of this case. It can clearly be seen that the extended warranty period starts from 23/9/2018 whereas the TV developed complaints on 24/8/2018 which is clearly outside the coverage period of Ext.A2. The extended warranty production is not available to the TV of the complainants.  Issue No.1 is found accordingly.

Issue No.2 :

6.In view of the finding in Issue No.1 we hold that opposite party No.1 is not liable to reimburse or compensate the expenses incurred by the complainant in repairing the TV. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 or 2.  Issue No.2 is found in favour of the 1^st opposite party.

Issue No.3 :

7.In the facts and circumstances of case there is  no order as cost. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  

8. The complaint is dismissed.

    Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th   day of August   2021.

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                               Vinay Menon V

                                                 President

   Sd/-

 Vidya.A

                    Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – TV Purchase Bill No.2661 dated 13/9/2016 for Rs.26900/- issued by Kochukudiyil

                Agencies, Mannarkkad

Ext.A2 – Extended warranty policy schedule issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance dated

                25/9/2016  

Ext.A3 – TV repair bill for Rs.8600/- issued by Onida Service Centre Adonis Electronics P.Ltd

                dated 26/11/2018

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Certified true copy of Policy and conditions 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1- Raji.C

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Cost : No cost allowed.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the

         proceedings in accordance with Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission

         procedure) Regulations, 2020.