By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986
1.The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
On 23/12/2017 the complainant purchased BC13155# SAMSUNG PANEL 32FH4003 LED SN#GPMNS13155-00104 LED Television for Rs. 18,990/- from ‘Bismi Connect Private Limited’, Perintalmanna manufactured by the first opposite party . The first opposite party offered two year warranty period to the front panel of the television. On 20/10/2019, a defect was found on the front panel of the television and the complainant informed the defect to the second opposite party. Two week later, a service engineer of the second opposite party came to the house in the absence of the complainant as he was living at Perintalmanna for education of his children. The neighbour of the complainant opened the house and service engineer of the second opposite party replaced the damaged front panel of the television. When the complainant returned to his residence for Christmas vacation, it was found that the replaced front panel was in a damaged condition. The complainant came to know that the replaced panel was in a negligent manner brought in goods auto rickshaw with some other electronic items and entrusted the same in his neighbourhood on the previous night of installation day . So it is contended by the complainant that the negligent act of the opposite parties caused damage to the replaced front panel. The complainant again contacted the second opposite party to replace the defective panel. But the second opposite party demanded Rs. 12,000/- for replacing the defective panel as the cost of the service charges and price of a new front panel. According to the complainant defect was found during the warranty period. So the opposite parties are liable to replace the damaged front panel of the television again. The act of the opposite parties caused financial loss, mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So Complainant approached this Commission to get an order of replacement of front panel of the television by the opposite parties and also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the damages and a mental agony caused due to the act of the opposite parties.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notices to the opposite parties. First opposite party appeared and filed version. The second opposite party received the notice , but did not turn up before the Commission, hence set exparte.
3. The first opposite party stated in the version that it is a company in corporate under the provision of Companies Act 1956. It is contented that complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits, without cause of action and liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. According to the first opposite party it serving customers, providing goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sales service. If any issue is brought notice of the first opposite party the same is immediately corrected, as a matter of priority. According to the first opposite party, if there is any breaking of terms of warranty no service would be provided. It is contented by the first opposite party that no steps were taken by the complainant to get an proper analysis report as he alleged manufacturing defect to the product. The averments made in the complaint that the complainant had purchased a Television from the dealer i.e, Bismi Connect Private Limited on 23/12/2017 is admitted by the first opposite party. It is the further admitted that the warranty of the panel of the said television is 2 years that on 20/10/2019 and when the panel was found defective, the same was replaced by the first opposite party also admitted. But at the same time the first opposite party denied that the said replaced parts were kept and brought along with other electronics goods without care and caution. The first opposite party also denied the allegation that defective panel again to be replaced was due to the fault and irresponsibility on the part of the second opposite party. According to the first opposite no financial loss caused to the complainant and no mental pain was suffered. The averments in the complaint that the panel replaced by the second opposite party was defective one for the second time, when the complainant again reported, the first opposite party demanded cost and service charges for the panel is admitted in the version. It is contended by the first opposite party that after two years i.e, after warranty period complainant again reported display complaint and on further inspection by engineer, it was found that the replaced panel become damaged but same was damaged due to misuse on the part of the complainant and not due to the manufacturing defect or not by any other technical failure. This fact was informed to the complainant and also given estimate for the service but the complainant was not ready to pay for cost of repair and demanded for free of service costs. It is stated in the version that the first opposite party did not commit any default or deficiency in service and so no liability can be attributed upon first opposite party. It is also contended by the first opposite party that the complainant has not produced any documents to prove that he had handed over the product for service. So the first opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavits to support their respective contentions and also filed documents. The document produced by the complainant marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 document is the copy of invoice bill issued by ‘Bismi Connect Private Limited “showing the purchase of television manufactured by the first opposite party. The first opposite party produced documents and marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. B1 document is the copy of Power of attorney issued by the first opposite party to its Director, Customer Satisfaction Division to conduct the case before the Commission. Ext.B2 document is the copy of customer service record showing the service details of the television purchased by the complainant.Ext.B3 document is the copy of warranty card issued to the complainant by the first opposite party.
5. The complainant filed an application to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the television. As per IA 114/2022 an expert Commission was appointed and after examination of the product, Commissioner filed a report along with 3 photographs before the Commission. The Expert report was marked as Ext. C1 document. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1 before the Commission and statement also recorded.
6. Heard both sides in detail. Perused affidavits and documents. The complainant and the first opposite party are also filed argument notes and gone through the same. The following points arised for the consideration of the Commission.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service committed by the opposite
Parties?
2. Reliefs and costs?
7. Points No.1 and 2:-
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a television manufactured by the first opposite party from its dealer named Bismi Connect Private Limited, Perintalmanna on 23/12/2017 for Rs. 18,990/-. On 20/10/2019 a defect was found on the front panel of the television and the complaint informed the second opposite party. Two weeks later service engineer of the second opposite party came to the house in the absence of the complainant and replaced the defected panel. When the complainant returned home after some days panel was found in damaged condition. When he contacted for replacement of the damaged panel, the second opposite party demanded Rs. 12,000/- as costs and service charges. According to the complainant the damage was found again during the warranty period and so he need not pay anything for replacement of the panel. In the version as well as affidavit it was stated by the first opposite party that warranty period was stipulated for two years and its validity lays up to 20/12/2019. The complainant produced Ext. A1 document show the transaction at the time of purchase of television. As per Ext. A1 document the product was purchased on 23/12/2017 and so the warranty period ends on 22/12/2017. Moreover the first opposite party did not challenge the credibility of Ext. A1 document. So it can be find that the damage occurred during the time of warranty period.
8. According to the complainant the first complaint to the panel was found on 20/10/2019 and same was not challenged by the first opposite party. At the same time the first opposite party produced Ext. B2 document to show that service was provided to the product on 07/11/2019. But the complainant stated in complaint and the affidavit that after the replacement, the panel was found again damaged and complaint was presented before the opposite parties. But according to the first opposite party, the replaced panel was damaged due to misuse on the part of the complainant . Moreover the damage was occurred after the elapse of warranty period. According to the complainant the first replacement of the panel was done in his absence. During that time the complainant was not available in his house and house was opened by one of the neighbour to facilitate the replacement. When going through the evidences, it can be seen that either party did not point out the exact date of damage of the panel or date of registration of complaint after the first replacement. As per Ext. B2 document first defect was rectified 07/11/2019. But at the same time the first opposite party did not produce any document in connection with the date of notice of subsequent complaint of the panel. The complainant contended that in connection with schooling of children he was not availed at home and he found the damage when he returned for Christmas vacation. Moreover, the name of the customer shown in Ext.B2 document was one Soudamini not of the complainant. It clearly denotes the absence of the complainant at the time of installation of the panel. According to the complainant the replaced parts were kept and brought along with other electronic goods without care and caution.
9. At the time of examination, expert commissioner deposed that the damage affected to the panel could have caused due to the fall of refrigerator like electronic products on the panel while it was bringing in an autorickshow and same falls in pot hole of the road during the transportation. In the Commission report also it was stated that the damage occurred to the panel was a result of strong blow. The first opposite party does not have a case that the replacement of the panel was done in the presence of the complainant. So evaluating the entire facts and evidences available on record, it can be seen that the opposite parties failed to convince the complainant about the working condition of the panel at the time of installation. Moreover the opposite parties did not make any attempt to secure the presence of the complainant or any authorised person of the complainant at the time of installation. So it can be considered that the opposite parties committed negligent act in their services towards the complainant and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to be answered. So the Commission allows the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to replace the panel of the television damaged with a new one and if the suitable panel was not available then pay Rs. 18,990/-(Rupees Eighteen thousand nine hundred and ninety only) as the price of the television after taking the damaged one.
- The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered due to the negligent act of the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of the order to till realisation.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2022.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : CW1
CW1 : Santhosh ( Expert Commissioner)
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Copy of invoice bill issued by ‘Bismi Connect Private Limited “ showing the
purchase television manufactured by the first opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1 : Copy of Power of attorney issued by the first opposite party to its Director,
Customer Satisfaction Division.
Ext.B2: Copy of customer service record showing the service to the Television
Purchased by the complainant.
Ext.B3: Copy of warranty card issued to the complainant by the first opposite party.
Ext. C1 : Expert report .
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
