This case is coming for final hearing on 28.07.2014 in the presence of Sri M.B.Rao Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri Korada Rama Chandar Advocate for Opposite Party No.1, Sri E.V.Narasimha Rao Advocate for 2nd Opposite party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:
: O R D E R :
(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)
1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased LG LCD television on 11.01.2009 for a total cost of Rs.35,500/- and to have trouble free service the Complainant decided to avail AMC Plan of LG on 03.05.2012 by paying additional amount of Rs.4,500/- to have the warranty up to 02.05.2014. The Complainant stated that in the month of September, 2012, he noticed a problem with T.V and the problem is when ever the TV is switched on, the TV automatically switching off on its own without giving an opportunity to watch the TV even for a minute. Then, the Complainant registered a complaint with the 2nd Opposite party for rectification of the problem on 24.09.2012 and after registering the Complaint, the 2nd Opposite party never attended to know the actual problem and the Complainant made phone calls to the 2nd Opposite party for several times to rectify the problem, but there was no response. The Complainant also registered a complaint on online, but there was no response from the 2nd opposite party. On repeated demands by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite party informed the Complainant that there are no spare parts available with the Company and they wish to pay some amounts to close the case. This clearly shows how arrogant the Opposite parties in dealing with the customers. The Complainant stated that even after payment of Rs.4,500/- towards AMC plan charges paid by him to cover the warranty up to May, 2014. The Opposite parties insisted the complainant to close the complaint which clearly shows the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. The Complainant stated that if there are no spare parts for the TV as mentioned by the Opposite parties that too which is just three years old, then where is the justification in issuing AMC till 2014 after receiving huge amount. Even after lapse of five months, the 2nd opposite party did not rectify the problem. Hence, this complaint to direct the Opposite parties;
a) to replace the troubled TV with a new TV of the same model or to repay the cost of the TV
b) To pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and costs and for other reliefs.
2. On the other hand, the 1st opposite party filed its counter and admitted about the purchase of LCD TV vide Model No.L32LG53FR from the 1st Opposite party on 11.01.2009 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- but denied all other allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the Complainant purchased the TV from the 1st Opposite party in the year 2009 whereas, the warranty period of said TV was expired long back. Hence, the 1st Opposite party is not a proper party in the present complaint and more over, as can be seen from the notices, as well as the complaint filed by the complainant there is no relief as well as claim against the 1st opposite party. Hence, the complaint against the 1st opposite party is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. The 2nd Opposite party filed its counter and denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the complainant filed the complaint with non-joinder of necessary parties and stated that the 2nd Opposite party is the service franchise of the company and whereas, company is situated at New Delhi. The contract is between the Complainant and company, but not between the 2nd Opposite party and the Complainant, as such no cause of action will arise against the 2nd opposite party to file the complaint by the complainant. The 2nd Opposite party further stated that there is no territorial jurisdiction against the 2nd opposite party as per Annual Maintenance Contract which was entered by the complainant with the Company and the same lies at New Delhi as per the contract No.23. The Complainant took Annual Maintenance Contract in the year 2012 in the name of Abhishek Das and lodged a complaint with the 2nd opposite party is not denied. On the same day i.e., 24.09.2012 the service engineer of the 2nd Opposite party called the Complainant and took appointment for rectification of defect in LCD TV and after thorough inspection by the service engineer, he informed that one of the item in the TV was corrupted and it should be replaced with new one, but the same was not presently available and it will take time to replace, for which the Complainant also accepted the same. The 2nd opposite party admitted that however, it is true to procure a spare part and it took time for procuring a spare part as the same is not available with the branch, but not five months as alleged by the Complainant. After availing spare part the 2nd opposite party’s engineer called the complainant and he took appointment to rectify the defect, but the complainant used to give appointment at his convenient time and once, the service engineer visited the house of the complainant, he never allowed the service engineer to rectify the defect and said that ask your superior to visit, then only he will allow the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party stated that he himself and the company service person by name Vara Prasad went to the complainant’s house by carrying spare parts to sort out the problem, but the Complainant used to speak arrogantly and refused to rectify the said defect. As alleged by the Complainant in the notice regarding paying of money and closing the issue is not the idea of the company, when the complainant visited the service center and asked the opposite party if the complainant refunds the said television for the company what will be the procedure, for that only, the company gave the details. The 2nd opposite party stated that being the franchise of the company are ready to rectify the said defect, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and more over there is no contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party, if the complainant still wants to get any relief, he has to take steps against the company where the contract lies between both of them. Hence, the Complaint against the 2nd opposite party is to be dismissed.
4. At the time enquiry the Complainant filed evidence affidavit, written arguments and also filed additional written arguments by way of reply and Exhibits A1 to A11 are marked. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed their counters, evidence affidavits and written arguments and the 2nd Opposite party filed its additional written arguments. No documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
5. In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?
6. The fact that as per Ex.A1 i.e., cash bill dated 11.01.2009 is not in dispute. As per the versions of the 1st Opposite party the Complainant purchased LCD TV/Plasma TV vide Model No.L32LG53FR for an amount of Rs.35,500/- in the year 2009 and the warranty period of the said TV as expired and more over in the notices issued by the complainant there was no claim against the 1st opposite party.
7. It is to be noted that the Complainant can claim the 1st opposite party if the problem occurs with his TV within the warranty period, but now after three years, he entered Annual Maintenance Contract with 2nd Opposite party, hence the Complainant cannot claim the dealer at this juncture.
8. Exhibit A2 is the Annual Maintenance Contract given by the L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., under Happy Living Plan on 03.05.2012. Ex.A3 is the Annual Maintenance Plan given by the LG Company regarding the Contract information. Ex.A4 is the copy of LG track repair service.
9. The Complainant’s version is that he entered into Annual Maintenance Contract on 03.05.2012 i.e., starting date of AMC and ending date is 02.05.2014, but during the AMC period when the problem occurs to his TV, no one attend to rectify the problem and moreover, after so much time, 2nd Opposite party informed that there were no spare parts and also advised him to close the case by paying small amount to settle the case. The Complainant made correspondences with the Opposite parties’ authorities by way of e-mail i.e., Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 dated 25.10.2012 is the notice given by the complainant to customer care and Ex.A7 dated 09.01.2013 is notice given by the Complainant to Manager of 2nd Opposite party.
10. The main plea taken by the 2nd opposite party is that the AMC contract is between company and the complainant, but not between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. Hence, the Complaint is non-joinder of parties. Here the Forum observed on the backside of Ex.A2 i.e., AMC Happy Living Plan dated 03.05.2012 there are some terms and conditions. In Term No.1 it is explained that;
“this contract is offered to the customers who are residing within the municipal limits of the city/town of the company’s authorized service centres. However customers residing outside the municipal limits of the city/town of our service centre can also opt for this contract, but in this case service will be undertaken only at the service centre and the customer will have to bring at his own expense to the service centre”.
As per this condition, the Forum came to know that even though, the Complainant entered into AMC with the Company, the 2nd Opposite party acts as an authorized agent on behalf of the parent company as mentioned in the terms and conditions and more over, that AMC entered by the Complainant in Visakhapatnam and the temporary cash receipt was issued by LG authorized person.
11. The other plea of the 2nd opposite party is that about jurisdiction. As per condition No.24 of Ex.A2
“all disputes are subject to New Delhi Jurisdiction”.
Regarding this, we are of the opinion that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam, as AMC was issued at Visakhapatnam. Hence, the Complainant can file the complaint in Visakhapatnam Forum, as there is jurisdiction.
12. As per Ex.A8 dated 02.05.2012 the 2nd Opposite party pleaded that theirs is only a service centre and Ex.A8 was given by the 2nd opposite party is the receipt for the service rendered by them on 02.05.2012 and here it is to be noted that, as per Ex.A2 AMC started from 03.05.2012, that too as per Condition No.2 in Ex.A2
“In case the service contract is to be entered into after the expiry of warranty period or of previous contract, the contract will be accepted subject to checking of the equipment by the company’s representative and verifying that it is in working condition. In case set is found defective and any repair needs to be done, then it will be repaired first and then taken into contract and the cost (labour and parts) shall be borne by the customer”,
hence according to this condition, 2nd opposite party checked the TV and repaired it, then entered into contract.
13. The 2nd Opposite party’s another plea is regarding the name in the AMC. The name mentioned in Ex.A2 is Abhishek Das, but whereas the TV purchased by Srikanth Das. Hence, the AMC is not valid as there is no AMC between the owner of the TV and the Company. But Ex.A8 is in the name of Abhishekdas. The Complainant’s reply regarding this is that the Model Number of LCD TV was mentioned in Ex.A1 is L32LG53FR and the same was mentioned in Ex.A2 and also in Ex.A8. More over, the Complainant’s plea is that Abhishek Das is his son and in the absence of the complainant his son took AMC bill from the Opposite parties, as he is nothing but his family member.
14. The Complainant stated that he never expected that he has to file a court case against the opposite parties if he knows that he would have insured his name on the AMC bill and more over AMC is warranty for a product but not for life insurance of a person.
15. The other plea regarding the validity of AMC as the 2nd Opposite party mentioned that there is no contract directly by the Complainant and the company, but as per Ex.A2’s conditions, the service centres are the authorized persons to rectify the defects and more over in Condition No.4 of Ex.A2
“the contract shall be valid for a period as mentioned in the Contract Form or the LGEIL Invoice, duly signed by LGEIL representative”.
Condition No.8 clearly shows that
“all defective components shall be replaced with compatible working parts and defective parts shall be company’s property”.
But the 2nd Opposite party failed to replace the defective part and pleaded that when the 2nd Opposite party approached the Complainant, he did not allow them to rectify the problem. But no document was filed by them regarding their plea. More over Ex.A10 dated 13.01.2013 is the complaint given by the complainant to Core Centre supported by Department of Consumer affairs. Ex.A11 is the response from Core Centre on 14.02.2013 wherein, it mentioned that “forwarded to concern branch, as parts are not available and customer not ready for commercial solution.” The plea of the 2nd opposite party is that after availing spare part they approached the Complainant but the Complainant not allows them, but it is not more than 5 months from the date of complaint given by the Complainant. But as per Ex.A11 when the Complainant met with a problem on 24.09.2012, but the position of the complaint as per Ex.A11 dated 14.02.2013 the status shows that parts are not available. The Opposite parties also denied about commercial solution of the TV, but in Ex.A11 it was clearly mentioned that the customer is not ready for the commercial solution, hence, the 2nd opposite party might have offer the complainant to refund the TV as there are no spare parts available.
16. The first relief claimed by the Complainant is either to replace the troubled TV or to pay the cost of the TV. But the Forum is of the view that as the 2nd Opposite party expressed its willingness to rectify the problem and more over the 2nd Opposite party is not a manufacturing company to issue new piece to the Complainant, hence as per the 3rd claim made by the Complainant “for such other relief or relieves which the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”, the Forum is of the view that the 2nd Opposite party has to rectify the problem of the TV and make the TV in working condition within one month from the date of order after submission of TV by the Complainant.
17. There is no doubt that the Complainant suffered a lot by not having TV in his house and more over, he made several correspondences to the opposite parties and suffered mentally and financially as there was no proper reply from them. Hence, it is just and proper to allow Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides costs.
Accordingly, the points are answered.
18. In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed, directing the 2nd Opposite party to rectify the defects of the TV and hand over it to the Complainant with working condition within one month and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, failing which 2nd Opposite party should pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides rectification of defects of TV. The Complainant also directed to hand over LCD TV to the 2nd Opposite party within 10 days from the date of order to get it rectify by 2nd opposite party. The costs of Complaint is Rs.1,500/-. The Complaint against 1st Opposite party is dismissed with no costs.
Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 25th day of August, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President (FAC)
District Consumer Forum-I
Visakhapatnam
Consumer Complaint No:71/2013
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:
Ex.A1 | 11.01.2009 | Cash Receipt | Original |
Ex.A2 | 03.05.2012 | Cash receipt for AMC Happy Living Plan. | Original |
Ex.A3 | | Copy of LG Annual Maintenance Contract. | Original |
Ex.A4 | | Copy of LG Track repair Service. | Original |
Ex.A5 | | Copy of Customer E-mail. | Original |
Ex.A6 | 25.10.2012 | Notice given by the Complainant. | Office copy |
Ex.A7 | 09.01.2013 | Notice given by complainant. | Office copy |
Ex.A8 | 02.05.2012 | Vat/Retail Invoice issued by Authorised Signatory Live Satellite Service. | Original |
Ex.A9 | 26.12.2012 | Track Online Repair Service. | Photostat copy |
Ex.A10 | 13.01.2013 | Complaint given by the complainant to Core Centre supported by Department of Consumer affairs. | Photostat copy |
Ex.A11 | 14.02.2013 | Response from Core Centre. | Photostat copy |
Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party: NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President (FAC)
District Consumer Forum-I
Visakhapatnam
