IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

            Dated this the  20^th  day of March 2018

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

         Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member

                                                  CC.No.230/2016         

Vitus Alexander                                  :                           Complainant

S/o Alexander

Dew dale, Convent Nagar-82

Thekkumbhagom, Iravipuram P.O, Kollam

V/s

1. The Managing Director              :               Opposite parties

          The sharp business Systems India Ltd

          Box No.9, #rd floor, Beats Tower, sector-125

         Noida, Back side of HCL, UP, India

2. Manager

        Authorised service Centre(SBSI Ltd.)

        Signal Electronics, Sports Nagar, Kadappakkada, Kollam

3. M/s A.B.Trade Links

          Shine Tourist Centre, near Iron Bridge, Kollam.

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , President

          This is a consumer complaint filed under Section 12(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party No.1 to 3 claiming compensation and also directing to replace the old LED TV set with a new one.

The allegations in the complaint in short are as follows. 

On 09.02.2013 the complainant purchase one Sharp Company make LED 32 LE 341M TV by paying Rs.27000/- as its price from the 3^rd  opposite party shop.   1^st opposite party  is the manufacturer of the  LED TV and 2^nd opposite party is the authorised dealer and service centre at Kadappakkada, Kollam.  At the  time of purchasing the LED TV the 3^rd  opposite party  has given assurance  that the LED TV is a product having no defect and issued  invoice  and also

2

allowing 3 years warranty.  However  against the assurance made by the 3^rd opposite party the above LED TV became defective on 20.11.15.  The complainant informed the matter to the 3^rd opposite party.  There up on the 3^rd opposite party informed that the 2^nd opposite party is the authorised service centre.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and asked to cure the defects in the LED TV but the 2^nd opposite party has not taken any action.  However on 26.11.15 the complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party and made a complaint and in view of the complaint 2^nd opposite party has deputed the technician to repair the TV.  But the technician failed to repair the TV set and he issued a service sheet bearing  No.SKVV 151631459.   Again  on

27.11.15 the  technician  deputed  by  the  2^nd  opposite party made another attempt to repair the LED TV but he failed miserably .  Thereafter opposite parties have not taken any action to set right the defect in the LED TV,  though it was having 3 years warranty.  The complainant has caused to intimate the matter to the Senior Consumer Support Executive by sending e-mail.  He has also not taken any action to cure the defect.  Apart from that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party have also  behaved in an inadvertent manner and also attempted to defame the complainant.  The LED TV purchased from the 3^rd opposite party was not having qualities and performance assured by 2^nd and 3^rd  opposite parties.  The complainant has sustained heavy financial loss.  The LED TV has not accomplished his purpose and has become useless to the complainant and his family members especially during 20-20 cricket match, Euro Cup Football, Assembly election, educational entertainment programmes etc and he could not enjoy the daily news and news related to the above events.  The LED TV manufactured by the 1^st opposite party is having no qualities as advertised by the company in medias  nor having any after sale service .  The complainant send a lawyer notice to the  opposite  parties but  they  have   not   taken  anyaction till date.  Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

3

on the part of the opposite parties  and therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and mental agony sustained by the complainant.  He further seeks to issue direction to the opposite parties to replace a new LED TV as  the opposite parties could not repair the old one. 

The opposite party No.1 to 3 have filed a joint written version admitting the following:-

The complainant  has purchased  one LED 32LE341M  Television  set  of Sharp Business Systems(India) Pvt.Ltd. Company  from the  distributor agent (opposite party 3)  on  09.02.2013.   The  company  had  registered and attended

all the calls of the customer with the detailed briefing to the customer of the service given and the full technical support provided to the customer.  It is further admitted that the 1^st complaint was registered on 20.11.2015 and Company’s Authorised Service Centre had attended the complaint.  Engineer in due consultation with Head Office of Sharp had contacted the customer and informed that the panel of the said tv is damaged.  The company has called back the damaged LED TV from the customer to the service centre and  also provide a stand by TV for usage.

  However it is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the side of the company that on verification of the LED TV set the company found multiple lines or black spots on the screen of LED which displayed due to external cause/impact.  The authorised service centre explained the whole facts to the complainant that the panel has been damaged due to external impact and cannot be replaced free of cost.  There was no manufacturing defect in the LED TV as claimed by the complainant.  It is informed to the complainant that the damage due to external  reasons are not covered under warranty as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card.  Hence LED panel will be replaced on chargeable basis.  The products of the company  are of  world class

4

and tested as per international safety standards and the manufacturing facilities are ISO 9001&ISO 14000 certified.  The company had given  its best services based on the terms and conditions of warranty for the LED TV of the complainant.  There is no merit in the present complaint and the opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1.  Whether the panel of the LED TV has been damaged due to any external impact as alleged by the opposite parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get  replaced the defective  LED TV purchased by him from the 3^rd opposite party by a new one?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties as claimed?
5. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1to P6  documents.  Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate their contentions.

Both sides have not filed any notes of argument, though sufficient opportunity was granted.  However when the case was posted for hearing on 27.06.18, the learned counsel for the complainant has not turned up.  Heard the counsel for opposite parties.

Point No.1 to 3

          For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these three points are considered together.  There is no dispute  with regard to the fact that the complainant on 09.02.13 has purchased one Sharp LED 32LE341M  Television as per Ext.P1 bill and the 3^rd opposite party has also issued Ext.P2 warranty card.  According to PW1 on 20.11.15 the said TV set has ceased its

5

functioning and the matter was intimated to the 3^rd opposite party dealer over phone.  There up on the 3^rd opposite party has told him that it is the duty of the 2^nd opposite party to get the defective TV repaired. Immediately the complainant rushed to the 2^nd opposite party and requested to set right the defect in the TV.  But the 2^nd opposite party  has not taken any action to cure the defect.  But on 26.11.15 again he met the 2^nd opposite  party and made a complaint and on the basis of the complaint the  technician deputed by 2^nd opposite party has   attempted  to  repair the TV but he failed and returned, after issuing Ext.P3 service sheet dated 26.11.15.  Again on 27.11.15 the technician  attempted  to get the TV repaired.  But  on the  2^nd  time  also he

failed in his attempt. According to PW1 though the TV set has became defective within the warranty period no action has been taken by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party to cure the defects. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party have also behaved in an indecent and defamatory manner to the complaint who made complaint regarding the defects found in the TV set. 

The terms and conditions stipulated in Ext.P2 warranty card would clearly indicate that the warranty is for a period of 3 years from the date of purchase of the LED TV.  Admittedly  the LED TV was purchased on 09.02.13.  Ext.P3 service sheet would further indicate that it has become defective on 26.11.15 clear from Ext.P3 that the defect noted is no picture.  The number of the LED TV sold to the complainant and address of the complainant is  also specifically written in Ext.P3 service sheet.  In the circumstances it is clear that the TV purchased from the 3^rd opposite party has become defective during the warranty period itself and therefore the opposite party No.1to 3 are bound to repair the defect or to replace the same by a new LED TV. 

The opposite parties though admitted the defects they would content that it was due to external cause/impact.  According to them the panel has been

6

damaged due to external impact and cannot be replaced free of cost. It is pertinent to point out that the technician who written Ext.P3 service sheet has not indicated any such vie in Ext.P3.  It is true that in 1^st condition regarding the warranty stated in the over leaf of Ext.P2 warranty card is that the warranty does not extent to any part of the product which may have been subjected to misuse, neglect, accident, improper installation/operation, high voltage fluctuation, damage caused due to natural calamities, external factors,  mishandling  and defects caused by connection by external equipments, cable signals or which has been tampered with any outside agency or authorised by the  seller in writing.  The  opposite  parties  would

content that the defect has been caused due to external cause/impact and the damage was due to external reasons and therefore no warranty cannot be given.  What is the external reason which has caused damage to the LED TV is not stated in the written version or in Ext.P3 service sheet.  But during cross examination of PW1 it is brought out in evidence that the complainant has brought TV to the dealer by carrying the same in his motor bike.  However PW1 has categorically answered that there is no chance of causing the damage to the LED TV while transporting the same in the motor bike.  The above evidence of PW1 would rule out the chance of causing damage to the LED TV set by external cause. Though the complainant has sent Ext.P4 e-mail complaint to the 1^st opposite party and also caused to send the original of Ext.P5 lawyer notice.  The opposite parties have not sent any reply stating that the defect found in the LED TV was caused due to external impact.  This fact is also no stated by the technical expert who verified the LED TV and issue Ext.P3 service sheet. In the circumstances it is crystal clear that the said defect occurred during the warranty period is a manufacturing defect and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the defects cured and if not possible to get the defective LED TV replaced by a new one or to return the

7

price of the TV set. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P4 e-mail complaint lodged before the 1^st opposite party company and Ext.P5 lawyer notice dated 18/07/16 the defect in the LED TV found during warranty period was not cured . Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1to3.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get either the defective LED TV repaired or get it replaced by a new one and also entitled to get compensation from opposite party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The points answered accordingly. 

Point No.4

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms. 

Opposite party No. 1 to 3 are directed to get the LED TV repaired and make it in a working condition and if it is not possible they are directed to replace the defective LED TV with a new one.  Opposite party No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally with interest @9% p.a from the date of complaint till realisation.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant being costs of the proceedings. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.27000/- being the cost of the LED TV with compensation Rs.10,000/-  and Rs.5000/- being costs along with interest @ of 12% per annum from opposite party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the   20^th day of March  2018.

                                                                         E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

 M.Pravenn Kumar:Sd/-

 Forwarded/by Order

                                                                        Senior Superintendent

                                                     8

I N D E X

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant

PW1:-         Vitus Alexander

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1: -     Copy of  Bill dated 09.02.13

Ext.P2:-      Copy of warranty card

Ext.P3:-      Copy of Service Sheet

Ext.P4:-      e-mail copy

Ext.P5:-      Copy of Advocate notice and postal receipts.

Ext.P6:-      Acknowledgement card

   E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim: Sd/-

                                                                            President

    M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-         

     Member

                                                                           Forwarded/by Order

                                                                            Senior Superintendent