Date of filing :  23.08.2017

Date of order : 17 .10.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE

PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L.     PRESIDENT

                THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L.                    MEMBER – I

        SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,     MEMBER- II

MONDAY THE 17TH  DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINANT NO. 18/2017

Mrs. Maheswari,

Wife of Manikandan,

No. 25/2, New Street, Poonjolai Nagar,

Ramapuram Village, (Near Kaveripakkam Police Station),

Walaja Taluk, 

Vellore District.                                                                              …Complainant

-Vs-

1. L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Regional Manager,

    Regional Office No. AA11, Fathima Towers,

    1st & 2nd Floor 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

    Chennai – 600 040.   

2. Crystal Air System,

    Rep. By its Manager, 

    L.G. Authorised Service Centre,

    No. 3, 2nd Cross Street Road,

    Near Nathan Mahal, Krishna Nagar,

    Vellore – 632 001.

3. Kandha Electronics,

    Rep. by its Owner,

    No. 76A, M.B.T. Road, 

    (Opp Municipal Office),

    Walaja – 632 513.                                                                       …Opposite parties 

Counsel for complainant                                  :  Thiru. B.G. Thanigaivel   

Counsel for first and second opposite  parties :  Thiru. V. Natanasigamani 

                                                                            (Government Pleader) 

Third opposite party                                          :  Set exparte  on 27.12.2017

ORDER

THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT

    This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct opposite parties to give new “LG LED TV 32”  to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and compensation for the deficiency of service  and also to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost.   

1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

    The complainant purchased “LG LED TV 32” Model 32LF595B for Rs.31,000/-  Serial No. 510OLCD067915 from third opposite party at Walajapet on 15.11.2015.  The warranty card holding a time frame of 3 years extended warranty.  Card No. EWP15-102991).  Subsequently, the complainant had a problem with her television i.e there is no brightness in the TV.  So, the complainant approached second opposite party who is the authorised service centre of first opposite party for rectifying the problem in the television.  On 12.01.2017 the service men of second opposite party technician, Mr. Venkatesan, visited her house and identified a problem with television back light.  The service technician, Mr. Venkatesan told that it would cost Rs.3000/- + service charges since there was three years extended warranty.   She was told to bring the TV to the Crystal Air Systems Vellore to avail free service.  The complainant took the television to the said service centre on 13.01.2017 through rental car and handed over the T.V for rectifying the back light problem.  At that time, the T.V was thoroughly checked for any other problem other than back light problem. But, the complainant was told by the service technician that the TV had only back-light problem and there is no other problem. . The warranty card was given to the Crystal Air System Service Technician but the complainant was told that the warranty card given by Kandha Electronics was invalid, but he did not give any reason for saying it is invalid card.  Then, the complainant approached the second opposite party for clarification regarding warranty card dated 15.11.2015.  Again, third opposite party issued another warranty card dated 14.08.2015 and extended warranty for two years.  (Warranty card No. EWID15-3316152).   When the complainant approached the second opposite party with the new warranty card issued by third opposite party, the complainant was told by second opposite party that the television problem was corrected and the complainant must pay Rs.15,000/- for repairing the T.V. display panel. The complainant also received outstanding clearance letter dated 25.02.2017 without any consideration of warranty card, issued by third opposite party  and also repair charge amount was not mentioned in the letter.  So the letter issued by the Crystal Air Systems, Vellore is not legally binding over the complainant and also, she has not yet recovered her television set which is under possession of crystal Air Systems, Vellore. The said T.V has been manufactured by first opposite party and marked through third opposite party.  Since, the complainant is having more confidence upon first opposite party about all the materials manufactured, the complainant chose to purchase the LG T.V. But there was no proper service towards the customers like the complainant.    So first opposite party are also vicariously liable for their activities.  Because of their poor service towards the complainant she sustained more mental agony and sustained more damages.   The complainant issued a legal notice on 18.05.2017 to the first opposite party, second opposite party and third opposite party the legal notice served to respondents the complainant had filed the served acknowledgement card part and parcel of this complaint.  The complainant has not received any reply notice.   Hence, filed this complaint.     

2. The written version of first and second opposite parties are  as follows:

       The second opposite party denies the allegations made in para 3 of the complaint that she had purchased LG LED TV 32” Model 32LF595B, Serial No. 510PLCD067915 from third opposite party at Walajapet on 15.11.2015 at the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.31,000/- as the cost of LG LED TV 32” when the complainant purchased the said TV third opposite party issued the warranty card  holding at the time frame of 3 years extended warranty.  Warranty Card No. EWP15-102991. Subsequently, the complainant had a problem with her television i.e. there is no brightness in the TV.  So, the complainant approached the second opposite party who is the authorized service centre of first opposite party for rectifying the problem in the television on 12.01.2017, the service men of the second opposite party technician Mr. Venkatesan visited her house told that it would cost Rs.3000+ service charges to rectify the back-light problem.  But, the complainant told to the service technician that she was given a 3 years extended warranty on the LG television and that she will have the warranty up to a time limit  of 14.11.2018 and the same are all absolutely false.   The second opposite party specifically denies the para 4 of the complaint and suppressing the true facts.   The second opposite party denies the para 5 of the complaint that the complainant gave the warranty card to the Crystal Air Systems, service technician but the complainant was told that the warranty card to the Crystal Air Systems, service technician but the complainant was told that the warranty card given by Kandha Electronics was invalid but he did not give any reason for saying it is invalid card then the complainant approached third opposite party for clarification regarding their already issued warranty card dated 15.11.2015 again third opposite party issued another warranty card holding date 14.08.2015 for an extended warranty of 2 years (Warranty card Number EWID 15-3316152) saying no inconvenience will be happened that time when the complainant approached second opposite party with the new warranty card issued by third opposite party, the complainant was told by second opposite party that the television problem was corrected and most pay Rs.15,000/- for repairing the TV display panel the complainant also received outstanding clearance letter dated 25.02.2017 without any consideration of warranty card, issued by the third opposite party and also the repair charge amount was not mentioned in the letter so the letter issued by the crystal Air Systems Vellore is not legally binding over the complainant and also she has not yet recovered her television set which is under possession of Crystal Air Systems, Vellore and the same is not correct and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  In fact with reference RNP 170106038202, on 6th January 2017 the second opposite party’s engineer went to complainant’s house attended and informed backlight issue and the unit is in dead condition, may be backlight issue, it would be costing around Rs.3,000 and after replacing the back light only he can give clear estimation.  For that the complainant said she is having 3 years extended warranty but don’t have the bill and EW proof at that time.  Subsequently on 13.01.2017 the complainant brings the Unit to workshop with extended warranty card No. P15102991 sales offer period for extended warranty covered 10.04.2015 to 27.05.2015 and purchase bill no. 9416 date of purchase was 15.11.2015.  Due to extended warranty offer period is different from the DOP and found extended warranty is invalid one and the same was property explained to the complainant.   On 13.01.2017 the complainant requested to the second opposite party, to avoid unnecessary risk to take back the unit and she is once again coming from 50 Kilo meters for away from service centre, due to rental Car transportation  charges and he requested to keep the unit with service centre on saying commitment that within two days she will submit the exact extended warranty proof or otherwise do the service on chargeable basis.  Hence, the second opposite party accepted the unit from the complainant issued the receiving challan  i.e. Acknowledgement for receipt of the unit from the complainant.   The complainant approached the second opposite party on 13.02.2017along with extended warranty card No. ID15-3316152 sales offer period for extended warranty is 08.08.2015 to 16.08.2015  and another purchase bill no. 6870 shows date of purchase on 14.08.2015 containing the same disputed LED TV serial No. mentioned as 51OPLCD067915.  Due verification of the purchase bill and warranty card by the second opposite party, the disputed LED TV  (Unit) was sold, before the date of manufacturing.  Hence, the second opposite party clearly explained to the complainant both warranty cards are invalid one. Thereafter complainant also accepted to rectify the unit on chargeable basis.  Then only the second opposite party taken  up for service, after replacing the backlight and put on the TV subsequent problem found display panel was internal crack.  So the estimation of Rs.13,000/- given to the complainant.  In fact, the TV display panel internal crack concern, while switch on the TV only it can be found or otherwise on the switch off mode nothing will be found.  So, the complainant not accepted for the subsequent problem of internal crack in the TV display panel and created problem and filed the above complaint for grabbing much money and new TV from the opposite parties on unclean hands.  In this limini the above complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.    On receipt of this notice from this Hon’ble Commission.  Third Opposite party did not appear, several opportunities given, the third opposite party called absent set exparte.

4.    Proof affidavit of complainant filed, Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed.   Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.  Written argument of both sides filed.  Oral argument of complainant side heard.     

5.The points that of arises for consideration are:

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

               parties?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?

6. Point Nos. 1 & 2:           

                 The complainant purchased “LG LED TV 32” from third opposite party on 15.11.2015 for Rs.31,000/-.  The said TV was manufactured by first opposite party. The second opposite party is the authorised service centre of the first opposite party. The said TV had warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase.  In January’2017 the said TV had some problem, therefore the complainant approached the second opposite party, who is the authorised service centre of the first opposite party for rectifying the problem.  On 12.01.2017 the service personnel of the second opposite party came to the complainant’s house and found that there was a backlight problem and the service personnel told that the complainant to pay Rs. 3,000/- rectify the same..  When the complainant given the warranty, card issued by the third opposite party, the opposite party asked the complainant to brought the TV to their service centre.  Accordingly, the complainant took the television to the service centre on 13.01.2017, the second opposite party thoroughly checked the TV and informed the complainant that there is a backlight problem.  She gave a warranty card to the second opposite party, but the second opposite party informed the complainant that the warranty card issued by the Kandha Electronics i.e. third opposite party is not valid. Therefore, they requested Rs.15,000/- to pay for repair the TV display panel.  Having aggrieved for the same. The complainant, issued a legal notice on 18.05.2017 to the opposite parties, but there was no reply from the opposite parties.  In the meantime, the third opposite party issued another warranty card, for an extended warranty of 2 years.  The allegation of the complainant is that we are an illiterate in the warranty card, they mentioned in the big letters 3 years warranty at the bottom of the warranty card some conditions the mentioned which could not be readable in an ordinary vision. Therefore, the first opposite party mislead the customer as if they give a warranty for 3 years for their product.  Hence, the opposite party has committed not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.   The opposite party admitted the purchase of the TV, some way manufactured by the opposite party but the repudiating the claim of the complainant that the warranty card only 2 years and not 3 years. Therefore, does not cover the free replacement of the TV panel.  Therefore, rightly the second opposite party requested to pay for replacement of the LED TV.  In this regard we have gone through the Ex.A1 the invoice as well as the warranty card dated 15.11.2015.  In the warranty card we found on the right side of the warranty card within the big circle in letters  big three years warranty was mentioned.   The dealer of the seal also found in the warranty card.  But during the argument of the first and second opposite parties to draw attention to terms and conditions at the bottom of the warranty card. Which mentioned as this extended warranty of his applicable from 10.04.2015 to 27.05.2015 only.  Whereas the complainant purchased TV on 15.11.2015 therefore this warranty card will not applicable to the complainant.  When we put the question” have you taken any action against the dealer for giving wrong warranty card to the customer”. The opposite party did not give any proper reply. Therefore, in our consider view that in a country like India where most of them are illiterate, the company like this to promote to their sales putting a  favourable marketing tricks.  At the bottom they are putting unreadable condition.  Which is in our consider view is unfair trade practice.  In the present case also the first opposite party also has played such an unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.   Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.        

7. POINT NO.3:       As we have, decided in Point Nos. 1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party is hereby directed to give a new LG LED TV 32.  In the alternative the first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand only) the cost of the TV and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation  for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered accordingly.  

8.    In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The first opposite party is hereby directed to give a new LG LED TV 32.  In the alternative the first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand only) the cost of the TV and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation  for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order,  failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of  this order to till the date of realization.  As against the second and third opposite parties this complaint is dismissed.     

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17th October 2022. 

Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                     MEMBER – II                                    PRESIDENT

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-15.11.2015 – The cash /Credit bill and warranty card issued by kandha 

                                  Electronics, Walajapet 

Ex.A2-14.08.2015 -  The cash /Credit bill and warranty card issued by kandha 

                                  Electronics, Walajapet 

Ex.A3-13.01.2017 -  The Defective goods movement challan

Ex.A4-25.02.2017 -  Letter issued by brand service manager, Crystal Air System for 

                                 the collection of the product and clearance of outstanding

Ex.A5-18.05.2017 -  The legal notice issued by the complainant

Ex.A6-19.05.2017 -  Served acknowledgement cards -2

Ex.A7-20.05.2017 -  Item delivered Postal receipt to LG Electronics pvt. Ltd.,

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:     

Ex.B1               -   Copy of  LG serial number details      

Ex.B2               -   Copy of owner’s manual guidance for warranty terms and 

                            conditions                           

Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER –I                                      MEMBER-II                                     PRESIDENT