IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.87/2013 (Filed on27.06.2013)
Between:
Krishnan Kutty
Revathy Bhavan,
Elanthoor East.P.O.,
Varyapuram,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Vijaya Home Appliances,
MGM Towers,
Thekemala,
Kozhencherry.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office : A-27,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi- 110044. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant approached this forum for getting a relief from the forum against the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of this complaint is as follows. That he had purchased an LED 3D TV, manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party, from the 1st Opposite Party on 15.04.2013 for an amount of Rs.73,990/- with warranty for one year. But it stopped its working on 31.06.2013. The matter was informed to the opposite parties and a complaint was registered as per the instruction of the opposite parties. After 2 days from registration of the complaint, technicians of the opposite parties came and checked the TV and told that the complaint seen is not covered under warranty and hence he have to pay Rs.5,400/- for repairing the TV. Immediately the complainant contacted 2nd opposite party. But they also denied the claim for warranty. According to the complainant the defects of his TV is due to low manufacturing quality and hence opposite parties are liable to repair the TV free of cost as the warranty is in force. So the act of the opposite parties in not repairing the TV is a deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.73,990/-, the price of the TV along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. In this case is 1st opposite party is exparte.
4. 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contention. 2nd opposite party admitted the sale of the TV. According to them they have send their technicians immediately on getting the complaint of the complainant and they examined the TV and found that the complaint is on printed circuit board and it was damaged either due to lightning or due to over voltage transmitted from the electric connection. The complaints due to the said reasons are not manufacturing defects and is beyond warranty conditions and hence the complaint is liable to pay the cost of repair. It is under the said circumstances the warranty protection is denied. Thus they have not committed any service deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, CW1 and Ext. A1,A2 and Ext. C1. After closure of evidence complainant alone was heard as there was no representation for second opposite party.
7. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that the defects occurred to his LED TV during its warranty period was not rectified by the opposite parties and they demanded an amount of Rs.5,400/- for rectifying the defect which is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complaint.
8. In order to prove the allegations, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the Retail invoice Dt.15.04.2013 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the TV in question. Ext. A2 is the copy of the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party Dt.15.04.2013 in the name of the complainant. Apart from the above evidence, commissioner appointed by the forum was also examined as CW1 and his report is marked as Ext. C1.
9. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is that on inspection of the TV it is found that the PCB was damaged either due to lightning or due to over voltage and such type of complaints are not covered by the warranty and hence the complainant has to pay the repairing charges. But they have not adduced any evidence in this forum other than the cross examination of PW1.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased an LED TV manufactured by 2nd opposite party for Rs. 73,990/- on 15.04.2013 from the 2nd OP with warranty for one year and it become defective on 31.06.2013 and opposite parties demanded Rs.5,400/- for its repair. According to the complainant this demand cannot be justified as the warranty is in force. The contention raised by the 2nd opposite party is that the alleged defects was caused either due to lightning or due to over voltage and the said defects are not manufacturing defects and is beyond warranty conditions. But the 2nd opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to show that the defect of the TV was occurred due to lightning or over voltage as claimed by them. So we are constrained to examine the evidence adduced by the commissioner who was examined as CW1. As per the evidence of the commissioner/CW1 the complaint of the TV is the defect of the PCV and it is due to its low quality. Though the 2nd opposite party filed an objection against Ext. C1, commission report they have not adduced any evidence for discarding the evidence of the commissioner or cross examined CW1. Therefore we have no other option than to accept the evidence of the commissioner and hence we hold that the defect of the TV is due to the low quality of the PCB. Since TV in question costs Rs.73990/, it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer second opposite party, to ensure its quality, which they have not done. In this circumstance the denial of the complainant’s warranty claim by the opposite parties is clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complaint. Therefore this complaint is allowable.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed, there by opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the complainant’s TV free of cost within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant, failing which complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the TV, ie. Rs. 73,990/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand nine hundred and ninety only) and the compensation and cost ordered herein above from the opposite parties with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
- Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2014.
(Sd/-) Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness for the complainant:
PW1 : Krishnankutty.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1 : Retail invoice dated 15.04.2013 issued by the first opposite party.
A2 : Copy of warranty card issued by second opposite party.
Witness for opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits for opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to: (1) Krishnan Kutty, Revathy Bhavan, Elanthoor East.P.O.,
Varyapuram, Pathanamthitta.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.87/2013 (Filed on27.06.2013)
Between:
Krishnan Kutty
Revathy Bhavan,
Elanthoor East.P.O.,
Varyapuram,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Vijaya Home Appliances,
MGM Towers,
Thekemala,
Kozhencherry.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office : A-27,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi- 110044. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant approached this forum for getting a relief from the forum against the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of this complaint is as follows. That he had purchased an LED 3D TV, manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party, from the 1st Opposite Party on 15.04.2013 for an amount of Rs.73,990/- with warranty for one year. But it stopped its working on 31.06.2013. The matter was informed to the opposite parties and a complaint was registered as per the instruction of the opposite parties. After 2 days from registration of the complaint, technicians of the opposite parties came and checked the TV and told that the complaint seen is not covered under warranty and hence he have to pay Rs.5,400/- for repairing the TV. Immediately the complainant contacted 2nd opposite party. But they also denied the claim for warranty. According to the complainant the defects of his TV is due to low manufacturing quality and hence opposite parties are liable to repair the TV free of cost as the warranty is in force. So the act of the opposite parties in not repairing the TV is a deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.73,990/-, the price of the TV along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. In this case is 1st opposite party is exparte.
4. 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contention. 2nd opposite party admitted the sale of the TV. According to them they have send their technicians immediately on getting the complaint of the complainant and they examined the TV and found that the complaint is on printed circuit board and it was damaged either due to lightning or due to over voltage transmitted from the electric connection. The complaints due to the said reasons are not manufacturing defects and is beyond warranty conditions and hence the complaint is liable to pay the cost of repair. It is under the said circumstances the warranty protection is denied. Thus they have not committed any service deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, CW1 and Ext. A1,A2 and Ext. C1. After closure of evidence complainant alone was heard as there was no representation for second opposite party.
7. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that the defects occurred to his LED TV during its warranty period was not rectified by the opposite parties and they demanded an amount of Rs.5,400/- for rectifying the defect which is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complaint.
8. In order to prove the allegations, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the Retail invoice Dt.15.04.2013 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the TV in question. Ext. A2 is the copy of the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party Dt.15.04.2013 in the name of the complainant. Apart from the above evidence, commissioner appointed by the forum was also examined as CW1 and his report is marked as Ext. C1.
9. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is that on inspection of the TV it is found that the PCB was damaged either due to lightning or due to over voltage and such type of complaints are not covered by the warranty and hence the complainant has to pay the repairing charges. But they have not adduced any evidence in this forum other than the cross examination of PW1.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased an LED TV manufactured by 2nd opposite party for Rs. 73,990/- on 15.04.2013 from the 2nd OP with warranty for one year and it become defective on 31.06.2013 and opposite parties demanded Rs.5,400/- for its repair. According to the complainant this demand cannot be justified as the warranty is in force. The contention raised by the 2nd opposite party is that the alleged defects was caused either due to lightning or due to over voltage and the said defects are not manufacturing defects and is beyond warranty conditions. But the 2nd opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to show that the defect of the TV was occurred due to lightning or over voltage as claimed by them. So we are constrained to examine the evidence adduced by the commissioner who was examined as CW1. As per the evidence of the commissioner/CW1 the complaint of the TV is the defect of the PCV and it is due to its low quality. Though the 2nd opposite party filed an objection against Ext. C1, commission report they have not adduced any evidence for discarding the evidence of the commissioner or cross examined CW1. Therefore we have no other option than to accept the evidence of the commissioner and hence we hold that the defect of the TV is due to the low quality of the PCB. Since TV in question costs Rs.73990/, it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer second opposite party, to ensure its quality, which they have not done. In this circumstance the denial of the complainant’s warranty claim by the opposite parties is clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complaint. Therefore this complaint is allowable.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed, there by opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the complainant’s TV free of cost within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant, failing which complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the TV, ie. Rs. 73,990/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand nine hundred and ninety only) and the compensation and cost ordered herein above from the opposite parties with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
- Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2014.
(Sd/-) Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness for the complainant:
PW1 : Krishnankutty.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1 : Retail invoice dated 15.04.2013 issued by the first opposite party.
A2 : Copy of warranty card issued by second opposite party.
Witness for opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits for opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to: (1) Krishnan Kutty, Revathy Bhavan, Elanthoor East.P.O.,
Varyapuram, Pathanamthitta.
(2) Vijaya Home Appliances, MGM Towers, Thekemala, Kozhencherry.
(3) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office : A-27, Mohan Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044.
(4) Stock file.
(2) Vijaya Home Appliances, MGM Towers, Thekemala, Kozhencherry.
(3) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office : A-27, Mohan Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044.
(4) Stock file.
