KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 700/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 07.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 49/2012 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

S. Chithan, Nakshatra, Janatha Road, Chempazhanthy P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

              (By Adv. Ravikrishnan N.R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Proprietor,  QRS Retail Ltd., XI/1949-2, Ramachandra Towers, Plamoodu, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

2. The Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Suites, New Delhi-110 044.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant in C.C. No. 49/2012 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short).  The District Commission as per the order dated 08.02.2012 dismissed the complaint. 

2.  The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows: On 02.04.2009 the complainant had purchased a Samsung LCD TV from the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 17,900/-.  The manufacturer is arrayed as the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant, while purchasing the TV had an expectation that it would function for at least a reasonable period of 9 to 10 years.  But the television began to work improperly after two years and when he contacted the 1^st opposite party they directed him to approach the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  The technician attached to the service centre had accepted the TV and issued a service request to the complainant on 03.08.2011.  The estimated cost for the repair of the TV was Rs. 10,003/-. A television which would worth about Rs. 20,000/- is expected to work at least for a period of 5 years.  The opposite parties had sold a defective television to the complainant and that is why it could function properly only for a very short duration.  When the TV got damaged, the complainant was constrained to purchase another TV after elapsing a period of two months.  Thus the complainant had suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Hence he would seek for an order directing the opposite parties to return the purchase value along with compensation and costs. 

3.  The 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.  The purchase of the TV by the complainant was conceded.  According to them the warranty period of one year had already elapsed when the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party for return of the TV.   The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer.  So direction was given to the complainant to approach the authorized service centre.  Subsequent incidents alleged by the complainant in respect of the communication passed between him and the service centre are not known to the opposite party. The complainant, after being satisfied with the specification and price had chosen the product.  There was no defect to the TV set at the time of sale.  The sales representative had demonstrated the working condition of the product and after getting satisfied with the TV the complainant had purchased it.  The alleged defect arose after the use of more than two years.  The service centre had undertaken that the defects would be cured by giving a reasonable reduction in the service charge.  There is no cause of action for the complainant.  Hence the 1^st opposite party would seek for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte. 

5.  On the side of the complainant evidence was let in by the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked.  The opposite party was examined as DW1 and marked Ext. D1. 

6.  The District Commission had dismissed the complaint as there was no material brought before the District Commission to prove the alleged manufacturing defect of the TV set.  In the appeal it is alleged that the complainant had already entrusted the TV with the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party which fact was not properly appreciated by the District Commission.  The District Commission has failed to pass a speaking order.  According to the complainant Ext. P1 ought to have been accepted by the District Commission wherein it could be seen that a defective TV was entrusted with the authorized service centre.  The manufacturer remained ex-parte and no evidence was let in by the manufacturer.  So an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the manufacturer. 

7.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records received from the District Commission.

8.  Ext. P1 is the service request issued by the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. P2 is the retail invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party with respect to the purchase of the TV by paying a sum of Rs. 17,900/-.  Ext. P3 is the lawyer notice issued to the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the complainant. 

9.  The complainant has given evidence before the District Commission as PW1.  He would attribute manufacturing defect to the TV purchased.  According to him the TV was purchased on 02.04.2009, but he could not use the same for more than two years.  Ext. P1 service request is seen issued on 03.08.2011.  Admittedly the alleged defect arose after the expiry of the warranty period.  When manufacturing defect is alleged the primary burden is upon the complainant to establish the same.  Though the complainant has caused production of Ext. P1 to the effect that he had entrusted the TV with the authorized service centre, he never made any steps to implead the authorized service centre as a party to the proceedings.  No steps are seen taken by the complainant to bring any evidence regarding the alleged manufacturing defect of the TV set.  On going through Ext. P1 it could be seen that the authorized service centre had placed a remark that “the TV was locally repaired”.  The complainant has no satisfactory explanation regarding the endorsement made by the service centre that the TV set was repaired locally.  The primary responsibility is on the complainant to establish that there was manufacturing defect to the TV set.  His expectation that the TV might be functioning for a period of 7 to 10 years is not a ground to jump into a conclusion that the TV set had manufacturing defects.  Since the complainant has miserably failed to bring any evidence regarding the alleged manufacturing defect of the TV set he is not entitled to get any relief.  The District Commission has appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and reached a proper conclusion.  There is no ground to make any interference with the finding arrived at by the District Commission.  Since the complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect he is not entitled to get any relief.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  There is no reason to make any alteration or modification in the order passed by the District Commission.  The appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is found that the parties shall bear their respective costs. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.   

AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER    

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER