SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,  seeking direction against the  OPs to  Rs.15,990/- which was the price of TV and also pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,705/- towards insurance premium.

Complaint in brief :-

   On 20/11/2020, the  complainant purchased a T.V worth Rs.15,990/- from the shop of 1^st OP with one year warranty. Moreover , the TV was insured for 3 years  with Bajaj Finance.  On6/11/2021, the TV has no display and the complainant couldn’t  watch the TV.  This was informed  to OPs 1&3 and the Bajaj finance by complainant and  without any visit  or inspection of any  technicians, all OPs told that the lack of display was due to the physical damage of the TV and they will not provide any service or insurance as the damage is a physical damage.  According to complainant Samsung company provided low quality TV glasses .  The complainant suffered mental agony and hardship and  hence this complaint.

           After filing the complaint, commission sent notice  to all OPs. 1^st OP entered appearance before the commission and filed their version.  Notice of OPs 2&3  duly served but not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  So the commission came   into a conclusion against  OPs 1&2 are  set exparte. After that 1^st OP filed petition to implead additional OP, that  petition is allowed and sent notice to additional OP.No.4.  4^th OP entered  appearance before  the commission and filed their version.

Version of  OP.NO.1 in brief:

    The 1^st OP denies the entire averment except those specifically admitted. The purchase of TV was admitted by 1^st OP. 1^st OP contended that they are only dealers of manufacturer and thereby  not providing any kind of after sale service  it is the duty of manufacturer and their related service center.  1^st OP also contended that they are not  a necessary party to the case and the service center are liable to provide service and hence the case against 1^st OP is liable to be dismissed.

Version of 4^th  OP in brief:

  The 4^th OP contended that they are not a necessary party to the complaint as as the 4^th OP is merely a financier and not the insurer of the complainant.  Hence 4^th OP has no role with regard to the approval or rejection of  insurance claim.  Moreover, the 2^nd OP being the  insurance company is liable to the loss sustained by the complainant, if any.  Here, the complainant and 2^nd OP are entered into an agreement not with the financing company.  At the very outset, it is seen that the claim was rejected since the article insured by the complainant was physically damaged and no coverage of insurance is available to the physical damage.  The 4^th OP has no liability towards the complainant’s loss and thereby the complaint is liable to  be dismissed.

        Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A3.   Ext.A1 is the original tax invoice  issued by 1^st OP dtd.20/11/2020, Ext.A2 is the insurance certificate  issued by 2^nd OP dtd.23/11/2020 and  Ext.A3 is the repudiation  letter sent  by  2^nd OP  to  the complainant dtd.24/11/2021.  The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.  1^st OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as DW1.  No documentary evidence from the side of 1^st OP.  4^th OP  produced 4 documents along with version . At the time of evidence 4^th OP not filed any proof affidavit or marked their documents.

   For the sake of  convenience the commission clubbed both issues together

     Let us  have a clear glance into the  documents produced   before the commission to answer the issues.  According to the complaint and version  there is no dispute in purchase of TV(Ext.A1 tax invoice) or the insurance  purchased by the complainant.  Here no detail discussion to the said point is necessary.  But, Ext.A2 which was issued by 2^nd OP, clearly indicates that the product has a membership of 3 years  started from 20/11/2020 which was the purchase  date until 19/11/2024 on the receival of Rs.3705/- from the complainant.  According to the complaint, complainant raised the issue of non-display of TV on 6/11/2021.  The 2^nd OP being exparte has no evidence to disprove the  claim of  complainant.  According to Ext. A3, which was the repudiation letter of 2^nd OP stated that the product –in- issue was damaged due to the physically damaged  broken panel.  The 2^nd OP was not liable   as the damage is a physical one and the policy will not cover such physical damage.  But , 2^nd OP never mentioned in Ext.A2 that the policy coverage will not be  applicable to physical damage. Moreover, in Ext.A2 nothing mentioned about that they have taken any steps to identify the damage of TV whether it is physically induced or not.  Even though  the complainant has not taken any expert opinion  the commission came into  the  conclusion of  deficiency in service from the part of  2^nd  OP on the basis of Ext.A2, which no specification of their terms and condition regarding physical damages and no  steps taken  to identify the type of damage.  Moreover, during the cross examination of PW1, she deposed that  she has no claim against 1^st OP as well as 4^th OP.  Hence, the commission came into a conclusion that 2^nd OP is liable  for deficiency in service as  damage arised within the period of warranty.  So the  complainant is entitled to get compensation also.

           In the result complaint is allowed in part, the 2^nd opposite party is  directed to  pay Rs.15,990/- which was the purchase price of TV   and  also pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and  Rs.3,000/- as  cost of litigation to the complainant  within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default  the amount of Rs. 15,990/- carries  interest @10% per annum from the date of order  till realization . Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against  the 2^nd opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice

A2- Insurance certificate

A3- Repudiation letter

PW1-K Parvathi -complainant.

DW1-Nidhn.K.V-1^st  OP

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR