Kerala

Idukki

CC/58/2017

Albert Mories - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Sreeram Transport - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Lissy M M

03 Nov 2018

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23/03/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 3^rd  day of November  2018

Present :

                        SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR                                             PRESIDENT

                        SRI. BENNY. K.                                                         MEMBER

CC NO.58/2018                

Between

Complainant                                                      :    Jazeer K.Ibrahim,

                                                                               Pendanathu House,

                                                                               Thodupuzha East P.O.,

                                                                               Undaplavu Bhagam,

                                                                               Thodupuzha.                           

                                                                                    (By Adv:  K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party                                     :     1 .  The Manager,

                                                                             Nelloor Home Shop,

                                                                             Choorappuzha Tower, Pala Road,

                                                                             Thodupuzha P.O., Thodupuzha.

                                                                      2  . The Managing Director,

                                                                             HAIER Appliences India Ltd.,

                                                                             Building No.1,  Okhla Industrial Estate,

                                                                             Phase III, New Delhi 110 020.          

                                                                                   

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

          The case of the complainant is that, 

 

          On 06/05/17, the complainant purchased a TV from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party by paying Rs.11,700/-.  At the time of purchase the first opposite party assured the quality of the product and its one year warranty.  Within 2 months of its purchase, the TV showed some defect and on intimation, the technician of the second opposite party inspected the TV and found that the TV is not running and on

                                          

                                                                                                          (Cont....2)

-2-

the basis of his report the first opposite party replaced it with another TV and the warranty of the previous TV is transferred to this TV.  But no bill or fresh warranty card was issued at the time of replacement.  While so, within 2 months this TV also showed some malfunctioning and on intimation, again the technician of the second opposite party inspected it and opined that the panel board is broken and for replacing the panel board, the technician demanded Rs.8000/- as its cost.  Thereafter complainant contacted the  second opposite party through the first opposite party, at that time he was intimated that the authorized person of the second opposite party will come and will solve this issue.  But thereafter no effort was taken by neither of the opposite party to redress the grievances of the complainant.  Under the above circumstance, the complainant approached this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the first opposite party for seeking relief such as to direct the first opposite party to replace the defective TV with a new one or repay its price along with cost and compensation.

 

          Upon notice the opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by denying the averments in the complaint.  Opposite parties further contented that immediately after getting information about the complaint of the TV, they acted fastly and resolved the problems by replacing the TV with a new one.  The next time on inspection it is found that the panel of the TV was broken due to misuse of the product in question, and the service technician of the second opposite party narrated the terms and condition of the warranty card to the complainant, in case of misuse of the product the warranty will not cover.  Further contented that as per the records, the panel of the TV in question was broken due to  misuse of the product and is not a manufacturing defect.  Service technician of the second opposite party given the estimate to the complainant for the replacement of the panel of the product, but the complainant denied for the same.  The prayer against this of the complainant is misconceived and is denied and the relief sought by the complaint is not allowable.

 

                                                                                                          (Cont.....3)

 

-3-

 

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the invoice dated 06/05/17 and Ext.P2 is the warranty card.  From the defense side opposite parties produced copy of photographs of a TV, marking of it was objected by the complainant on the reason that it is only a copy of photograph.

 

          Heard both sides,

 

          The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard both the parties  and gone through the evidence of records.  It is an admitted fact that complaint purchased a LED TV from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party on 06/05/17, by paying Rs.11,700/- (Ext.P1).  As per Ext.P2 this TV is having warranty for 12 months.  Immediately after the purchase, the TV showed complaint and on getting information about the defect, opposite party replaced it to another TV.  Within two months of the replacement, the second TV also showed the same complaint and on inspection the technician of the second opposite party found that the panel board of TV in question is broken due to mishandling.  Hence the technical demanded Rs.8000/- for curing the defects.  On perusing the deposition of the complainant and documents, it is seen that the version of the complainant is that, while replacing the old defective TV, with another one, opposite party has not issued any bill moreover at that time opposite party stated that the warranty of the first TV will continue with the second one.  More over even though the opinion of the technician of the second opposite party regarding the damage caused to the second TV  and the TV in question, no clear and cogent evidence is produced before this Forum to convince that damage caused to the TV is due to its mishandling.  On perusing the evidence Forum

 

                                                                                                        (Cont.....4)

-4-

found that except the copy of some photographs of a damaged TV screen, no authenticated evidence are produced by the opposite parties to substantiate the plea of damages.  Mere contention in the reply version cannot be considered without having any evidence to corroborate it.  Hence the Forum is of a considered view that the reason for denying free service in its warranty period by the second opposite party, cannot be sustainable and having no legal footing.  Hence the Forum found that the version of the complainant is believable and hence the complaint allowed in part.  The second opposite party is directed to cure the defect of the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant and directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default  till the realization.

         

         Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3^rd  day of November, 2018.

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -Jazeer K.Ibrahim

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            - The invoice dated 06/05/17

Ext.P2            - The warranty card

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 

 

DATE OF FILING : 23/03/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 3^rd  day of November  2018

Present :

                        SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR                                             PRESIDENT

                        SRI. BENNY. K.                                                         MEMBER

CC NO.58/2018                

Between

Complainant                                                      :    Jazeer K.Ibrahim,

                                                                               Pendanathu House,

                                                                               Thodupuzha East P.O.,

                                                                               Undaplavu Bhagam,

                                                                               Thodupuzha.                           

                                                                                    (By Adv:  K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party                                     :     1 .  The Manager,

                                                                             Nelloor Home Shop,

                                                                             Choorappuzha Tower, Pala Road,

                                                                             Thodupuzha P.O., Thodupuzha.

                                                                      2  . The Managing Director,

                                                                             HAIER Appliences India Ltd.,

                                                                             Building No.1,  Okhla Industrial Estate,

                                                                             Phase III, New Delhi 110 020.          

                                                                                   

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

          The case of the complainant is that, 

 

          On 06/05/17, the complainant purchased a TV from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party by paying Rs.11,700/-.  At the time of purchase the first opposite party assured the quality of the product and its one year warranty.  Within 2 months of its purchase, the TV showed some defect and on intimation, the technician of the second opposite party inspected the TV and found that the TV is not running and on

                                          

                                                                                                          (Cont....2)

-2-

the basis of his report the first opposite party replaced it with another TV and the warranty of the previous TV is transferred to this TV.  But no bill or fresh warranty card was issued at the time of replacement.  While so, within 2 months this TV also showed some malfunctioning and on intimation, again the technician of the second opposite party inspected it and opined that the panel board is broken and for replacing the panel board, the technician demanded Rs.8000/- as its cost.  Thereafter complainant contacted the  second opposite party through the first opposite party, at that time he was intimated that the authorized person of the second opposite party will come and will solve this issue.  But thereafter no effort was taken by neither of the opposite party to redress the grievances of the complainant.  Under the above circumstance, the complainant approached this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the first opposite party for seeking relief such as to direct the first opposite party to replace the defective TV with a new one or repay its price along with cost and compensation.

 

          Upon notice the opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by denying the averments in the complaint.  Opposite parties further contented that immediately after getting information about the complaint of the TV, they acted fastly and resolved the problems by replacing the TV with a new one.  The next time on inspection it is found that the panel of the TV was broken due to misuse of the product in question, and the service technician of the second opposite party narrated the terms and condition of the warranty card to the complainant, in case of misuse of the product the warranty will not cover.  Further contented that as per the records, the panel of the TV in question was broken due to  misuse of the product and is not a manufacturing defect.  Service technician of the second opposite party given the estimate to the complainant for the replacement of the panel of the product, but the complainant denied for the same.  The prayer against this of the complainant is misconceived and is denied and the relief sought by the complaint is not allowable.

 

                                                                                                          (Cont.....3)

 

-3-

 

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the invoice dated 06/05/17 and Ext.P2 is the warranty card.  From the defense side opposite parties produced copy of photographs of a TV, marking of it was objected by the complainant on the reason that it is only a copy of photograph.

 

          Heard both sides,

 

          The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard both the parties  and gone through the evidence of records.  It is an admitted fact that complaint purchased a LED TV from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party on 06/05/17, by paying Rs.11,700/- (Ext.P1).  As per Ext.P2 this TV is having warranty for 12 months.  Immediately after the purchase, the TV showed complaint and on getting information about the defect, opposite party replaced it to another TV.  Within two months of the replacement, the second TV also showed the same complaint and on inspection the technician of the second opposite party found that the panel board of TV in question is broken due to mishandling.  Hence the technical demanded Rs.8000/- for curing the defects.  On perusing the deposition of the complainant and documents, it is seen that the version of the complainant is that, while replacing the old defective TV, with another one, opposite party has not issued any bill moreover at that time opposite party stated that the warranty of the first TV will continue with the second one.  More over even though the opinion of the technician of the second opposite party regarding the damage caused to the second TV  and the TV in question, no clear and cogent evidence is produced before this Forum to convince that damage caused to the TV is due to its mishandling.  On perusing the evidence Forum

 

                                                                                                        (Cont.....4)

-4-

found that except the copy of some photographs of a damaged TV screen, no authenticated evidence are produced by the opposite parties to substantiate the plea of damages.  Mere contention in the reply version cannot be considered without having any evidence to corroborate it.  Hence the Forum is of a considered view that the reason for denying free service in its warranty period by the second opposite party, cannot be sustainable and having no legal footing.  Hence the Forum found that the version of the complainant is believable and hence the complaint allowed in part.  The second opposite party is directed to cure the defect of the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant and directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default  till the realization.

         

         Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3^rd  day of November, 2018.

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -Jazeer K.Ibrahim

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            - The invoice dated 06/05/17

Ext.P2            - The warranty card

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT