Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

245/2012

M.Sivalingam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, M/s.L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Kannan

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  17.10.2012

                                                                     Order pronounced on  21.04.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE  21^st  DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

C.C.NO.245/2012

 

 

M.Sivalingam,

S/O.Late Munusamy,

No.8/14 Varadharaja,

Perumal Koil Street,

Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs.

 

The Regional Manager,

M/S LG Electronics India Private Ltd.,

No.11, Fathima Towers,

1^st Floor,

2^nd Avenue (Near Nalli Silks)

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                   : 19.11.2012

Counsel for Complainant                       : P.Damodaran

Counsel for   opposite party                     : M/S. Prashant Rajagopal

         

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had purchased a LG LCD 47 LH 35 FR colour TV with sun DTH from Vasanth and Co on 07.10.2009 by paying a consideration of Rs.70,000/- in cash. Since the  guarantee period was over, the Opposite Party manufacturer had entered into an annual maintenance contract  for the period from 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2015, by  receiving Rs.13,244/-. On 10.02.2012, when the said AMC was in force, the LCD TV had developed some problem in sound system during 2012 and the same was informed to the Opposite Party.  The personnel of Opposite Party had registered the Complaint in Complaint No.1206,2706,7904, again on 13.08.2012 also another Complaint was given to the Opposite Party company in RMA No.120818085969, but inspite of that none of the personnel of the Opposite Party had turned up to set right the defect till today. Due to which the TV was kept idle and the Complainant could not enjoy the TV as it had became useless, Narrating this, the Complainant had sent a legal notice on 06.10.2012, calling upon the Opposite Party to rectify the defect, but there was no response, as such the Complainant had come forward with this Complaint seeking relief as stated above.

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complaint regarding non working of the Television Set and the same was attended by the Opposite Party Service Engineer who was not allowed to inspect the Television Set. The stand of the Complainant was that Television Set should be replaced without instructions. This stand could not be accepted by the Opposite Party’s representatives and accordingly they informed the Complainant that if the Television Set is proved truly defective then remedial action can be taken by the Opposite Party but the Complainant was not willing and instead he only kept insisting that he wants a new Television Set. As such the Opposite Party has denied that there is any Deficiency in Service on its part and submits that even as per the Complainant own documents the Complainant has failed to prove his own case. The factum of Annual Maintenance Contract pending in the current case will not be relevant, since the Opposite Party had never refused to rectify any alleged defects but  were not permitted to even inspect the Television Set of the Complainant. As such there is no cause for the Complainant to prefer this Complaint and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant much less a sum of Rs.70,000/- claimed as Deficiency in Service and mental agony. In such circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the Complaint.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant purchased a LG LCD TV with Sun TDH for a consideration of Rs.70,000/- as per Ex.A1 receipt and guarantee period was expired and  thereafter the Complainant entered AMC contract with the Opposite Party on payment of Rs,13,244/- as per Ex.A2 for the period 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2015 and during the AMC period some defects arose in the TV and the Complainant made Complaint to the Opposite Party by virtue of AMC contract.

          5. According to the Complainant the TV set developed problems in sound system in the month of June 2012  and same was reported to the Opposite Party people and a Complaint was registered by the Opposite Party in RMA No.120627067904 and another Complaint was reported RMA No. 120818045969 about the non functioning of TV in respect of sound system but till date the Opposite Party representative failed to visit  the Complainant residence to rectify the TV and hence the Complainant was unable to use the TV and suffered with mental agony and therefore issued Ex.A3 notice and even after that the product was not rectified by the Opposite Party and therefore filed this Complaint for compensation of  Rs.70,000/-.

          6. The Opposite Party would reply that the Complainant never allowed his men to inspect TV set to ascertain the problem and to take remedial measure and since the Complainant not allowed to inspect the product the Opposite Party was unable to do anything and further the Complainants seek only replacement of Television Set, that could not be possible by the Opposite Party in AMC contract and as such the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss this Complaint.

          7. Ex.A2 is the AMC contract (Happy Living Plan) entered between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The terms and conditions which would normally be available on the reverse page of the AMC are not available in Ex.A2. Unless specifically agreed in the AMC contract for replacement of the product the same could not be done. In Ex.A2 there is no agreement to replace the product with new one in case of the product became defective during AMC period. Hence the Complainant is not entitled for any replacement with new product.

8. The Complainant made Complaints twice that the sound system is not working. The Opposite Party would reply that his men, technician were not allowed  to inspect the TV and therefore  they were unable to rectify the product and further the Opposite Party always willing to rectify the product. The Complainant stated in Ex.A3 that none of the representatives of the Opposite Party visited the Complainant to rectify the product. The Complainant gave two Complaint numbers in Ex.A3 legal notice and also in the Complaint filed before this Forum. This fact was not disputed by the Opposite Party  in his written version. Therefore the Complainant proved that during the AMC period the product become defective and the same was Complained  to the Opposite Party. However the Opposite Party would contend that he was not permitted to ascertain the defect and to rectify the product. If Opposite Party men was not permitted to rectify the product, he should have immediately written to the Complainant  about his refusal. No document filed by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has not permitted the Opposite Party men to inspect the TV and in view of the same the contention of the Opposite Party that he was not permitted to inspect the product is not sustainable and on the other hand we hold that the Opposite Party without making any efforts to rectify the product and he is simply saying that he was not permitted to inspect the TV. In view of such conclusion we hold that the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service by failure to service the product of the Complainant during the AMC period.

 

9. POINT:2

           The Opposite Party collected as per Ex.A2, a sum of Rs.13,244/- towards  AMC, which is a huge amount and having collected such amount the Opposite Party bound to provide service to the Complainant TV.  Since the Opposite Party failed to provide service within the AMC period the Complainant suffered with mental agony is acceptable and for which he is entitled for compensation. Further the product become defective during the AMC period and therefore the Opposite Party is bound to rectify the product free of cost to a working condition and he is also entitled for cost of the Complaint. These are all reliefs the Complainant is entitled in this Complaint.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party  is ordered to  rectify the product  in working condition at free of cost within one month from the date of this order and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which  the above said  amount shall carry 9% interest till  the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st  day of April 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.10.2009             Purchase receipt marked as Ex.P.1

Ex.A2 dated 10.02.2012             Annual Maintenance Contract Certificate

                                          Marked as Ex.P.2

 

Ex.A3 dated 06.10.2012     Lawyer’s notice to the Opposite Party with AD Card

                                           marked as Ex.P.3     

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      …… NIL…….

                                     

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT