DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 31st day of January, 2023
C.C. 468/2015
Complainant
Sreenivasan. K.,
Karimpanakkal,
Alinthara,
P.O. Neeleswaram,
Omassery,
Kozhikode – 673582.
Opposite Parties
- Lavanya Electricals & Home Appliances,
Mukkom, Kozhikode – 673602.
- TPV Technology Pvt Ltd.,
1114, East Wing, Reheja Two Red, MC Road,
Bangalore – 5600 001.
- TPV Technology, SIT No. 6.,
-
9 Rawbon Street,
Kolkatta – 700017,
West Bengal.
(OP1 by Adv. Sri. Pavithran. K)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 05/05/2014 the complainant purchased an AOC TV from the showroom of the first opposite party. It was performing well. But on 26/04/2015, suddenly, a snag appeared on the screen in the form of a line across the TV screen, disturbing the vision and affecting the clarity. He waited for a few days thinking that it would restore normalcy by itself. But there was no change and hence he approached the first opposite party. But the first opposite party disowned responsibility and expressed helplessness in the matter and advised to contact the company. Accordingly, they contacted the company authorities and in turn, they contacted the complainant over phone and asked him to provide bill through whatsApp. The complainant did so. Then he was informed that an amount of Rs. 12,000/- would be required for repairing the TV. As it was not possible to pay such a huge amount and the TV is under the warranty period, the complainant again approached the first opposite party. But no positive action was taken to redress his grievance. Hence the complaint for compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The third opposite party was impleaded as per order dated 03/02/2017 in IA 36/2017. The first opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written version. The second and third opposite parties were set ex-parte.
4. In the written version, the first opposite party has admitted the purchase of the TV by the complainant on 05/05/2014 from their shop. Cash bill, warranty card etc were issued to the complainant on that date. They are only authorised dealer of AOC company. There is no technical staff in the shop. After sales service has to be done in the authorised service centre of the company. In May 2015, a complaint was reported by the complainant. The first opposite party had furnished the telephone numbers of the company to the complainant and advised him to contact the service centre. There was no deficiency of service on their part. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
7. Heard.
8. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission claiming compensation from the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service. The allegation is that the TV purchased by him became defective and there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to redress his grievance as per the warranty.
9. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 05/05/2014 and Ext A2 is the copy of the warranty policy.
10. That on 05/05/2014 the complainant purchased an AOC LED TV from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs. 12,950/- as per Ext A1 is admitted. Ext A2 shows that the product was having a warranty for 3 years from the date of purchase and the warranty would be comprehensive during the first year of the warranty period. The 2nd and 3rd year of warranty would be labour free. During this period, if any hardware/component became defective and needed replacement, the customer would bear the cost of the hardware, but labour charges would be free.
11. A few days after noticing the complaint, the complainant approached the first opposite party, who helped to contact the company. The grievance of the complainant appears to be that during the subsistence of the warranty, the company demanded repair charges amounting to Rs. 12,000/-. Admittedly, the warranty is comprehensive during the first year. The TV was purchased on 05/05/2014 and the first year was over on 04/05/2016. According to the complainant, the TV became defective on 26/04/2015. But there is absolutely nothing to show that the complaint was reported to the opposite parties before 05/05/2014. Even according to the complainant, he waited for a few days thinking that it would restore normalcy by itself. The date of reporting the complaint is neither disclosed in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit of PW1. PW1 has admitted in the cross-examination that the company had given him a reply through whatsApp. But the said reply is not produced before this Commission by the complainant. PW1 has admitted in the cross-examination that no documents are available with him to show that he had reported the complaint before the expiry of the first year of warranty period. So there is absolutely no evidence to show that the complaint was during the first year of the warranty period.
12. As already stated, for the second and third year of warranty, only labour would be free and if any component needed replacement, the customer would have to bear the cost. In the instant case, the company demanded repair charges. The complainant has no case that in the repair charges demanded, labour charge was included. As per the warranty policy, the customer should bear the cost of the hardware/component which needed replacement. So there was nothing wrong on the part of the company in demanding the cost of the components that needed replacement. That being so, no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the company.
13. To sum up, we hold that there is no proof of any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
14. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 09/09/2015.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the retail invoice dated 05/05/2014.
Ext. A2 - Copy of the warranty policy.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Sreenivasan. K (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
