SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to repair TV and to make it working or else pay Rs.90,000/- being the total loss towards repair of TV and compensation for mental agony. Further directing the opposite parties to pay litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.
The facts of this case are that the complainant purchased a Sony LED 43” KDL 43 X 8500C manufactured by the OP No.2 for a price of Rs.79,035.87, through its dealer OP No.1 vide its invoice No. A/19392716-17 dated 09/08/2016. The TV was purchased with financial assistance from the 3rd OP. The TV was having one year warranty given by the OP No.2. The finance availed was fully paid in time and there is nothing to be paid. The complainant availed Extended Warranty Policy bearing No. OG-16-999-9960-00000005 dated 24/08/2016 paying a premium of Rs.9,546/- from the fourth OP by which the warranty is extended for further period 3 years. The period covered by the policy is 09/08/2017 to 08/08/2020 midnight. In the month of August 2018 the TV has display complaint and the OP had repaired at their cost. In August 2019 the TV showed several lines in the screen and picture clarity is lost. The lines increased day by day and now the TV did not show any picture. The complainant registered a complaint through the OPs toll free number on 21/08/2019+. The OPs persons inspected the TV from the residence of the complaint and suggested that the display has to be changed. For several days there was no information from the OPs and later the complainant received letter from OP No.3 by which they informed the complainant that they have considered the complainant and suggested to total loss claim and want to submit certain documents. According to their total loss scheme I have to give the TV to them and they will pay Rs.21,112/- towards the total loss compensation. Since the total loss claim suggested by OP is not acceptable the complainant a letter dated 17/09/2019 was send to OP No.4 intimating him that he is not interested in total loss claim and asking them to repair the TV in good condition invoking the extended warranty provided by them. The reply was received by OP No.4 on 24/09/2019 but so far did not solve the problem. The complainant submits that the OP No.4 is bound to repair the TV to working condition changing necessary parts as per the warranty policy issued by them. The service of OP NO.4 is deficient. Due to the attitude of the OPs the complainant had suffered mental agony and financial loss. Hence filed this complaint.
After receiving notices, each OP filed separate versions. OP No.1 contended that the complainant purchased Sony 43” LED TV KDL43X 8500C manufactured by the OP No.2 from this OP on 09/08/2016. But, denied the averments regarding complaint of TV. This OP denies the allegation that the TV was damaged during the period of warranty. Further states if the averments in the complaint are true the complainant insured his product with the third and fourth OPs hence the grievances of the complainant should be redressed by the third and fourth OPs. This OPs No.1 is only a dealer of OP NO.2, the manufacturer, that the OP No.2 has assured warranty to their products. This OP sold the TV to the complainant with one year warranty. So the OP NO.2 is liable to give proper service to the complainant. Ongoing through the averments in the complaint it can be seen that the OP NO.2 did not extend proper service to the complainant. In such a situation OP NO.2 is liable to bear the loss of the complainant. This OP never refused any service required by the complainant. There is no allegation of deficiency in service from this OP. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against OP1.
OP No.2 has stated that the OP No.2 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. At the outset the present complaint is liable to dismissed against OP No.2 sue to the fact that the issue raised by the complainant is against the Bajaj Finance & Bajaj Allianz OP3 and OP4. The OP 2 has no role in the present complaint and the complainant has unnecessarily made OP 2 a party in this present complaint. It is submitted that complainant has purchased Extended Warranty valid till 08/08/2020. The complainant approached the ASC in Aug 2018 raising an issue in the TV set. The ASC without any delay immediately attended the complainant and Free of cost (FOC) support was provided by the service center of OP2. Nothing was charged from the complainant for the repair action/support with respect to the said TV. Thereafter, in Aug.19, lines on display appeared and display gradually went off. Since the TV was out of warranty due tot the expiry of the warranty periods of 1 Year the repair Estimate of Rs.21,112/- shared with the complainant for carrying out repair action/replacement of part but the same was rejected by complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has taken extended Warranty from the Bajaj Finance & Insurance Company ie OP3 & OP4. The extended warranty is usually taken by the customer for the reason that in case if anything goes wrong with the TV, the insurance will bear the cost of repair action. The ASC Company ie OP2 has nothing to do with the extended warranty. It is the Insurance Company who has to bear al the expenses with respect to the repair action. In the present case, the complainant is unnecessarily raising issues against Sony India Private Ltd. Where as Sony India is not at all liable for any out warranty issues. In view of the above facts it cannot be said that there was “Deficiency in Service” in relation to the subjected TV. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
According to OP No.3 the complainant has purchased the Sony LED TV from the OP No.1 by availing loan from their OP. The OP submits that the complainant has paid all the EMIs of both the loan and presently both loan accounts are closed. Being financier OP 3 is not at all responsible or liable for any vicarious liability of OP Nos., 2 and 4 or any defect in the product purchased by the complainant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against the OP No.3 with an exemplary cost.
OP No.4 Insurance company from which the complainant availed extended warranty policy dated 24/08/2016 after paying a premium of Rs.9546/- for further period three years ie from 09/08/2017 08/08/2020 has contended that since the insurance policy is a pure business contract between the parties either party is not expected to go beyond the provisions and conditions of the contract. There has been no deficiency in service whatsoever, on part of this OP in dealing with the concerned policy. It is submitted that there are 2 claim was registered in 2018. Claim registered on 21/08/2018, visit done on 22/08/2018, Type of damage – Line on screen, Action taken – replaced panel. Amount paid to service centre Ashwin Electronics on 11th October 2018 Rs.38,114/- for panel and Rs.1,180/- as service charge. Another complaint was filed on 24th Aug 2019 with same issue raised in previous claim. OP 4 insured and after deducting previous claim amount decided to pay Rs.21,112/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. Further the same was intimated to the insured but there was no revert from insured, hence the claim was closed after paying service charges of Rs.1,170/- to service centre Ashwin Electronics on 12th September 2019. It is submitted that liability of OPs will not be more than Rs.21,112/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy after deducting Rs.16,408/- as depreciation value as the product has 3 years age. Mr. Ratna Sudhakaran P V is appointed as Expert commissioner and he has inspected the product in dispute after giving prior notice to OPs, filed his report which is marked as Ext.C1.
At the evidence stage, complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as Pw1 and marked ext.A1 to A7. The expert commissioner was examined as Pw2 and marked expert report as Ext. C1. Sales Executive of OP No.1 has filed his proof affidavit. OP No.3 produced 5 documents marked as Ext.B1 to B5. OP No.4 submitted two documents and were marked as Ext.B6 and B7. After that the learned counsel of complainant and OPs made oral arguments.
In the expert report, the expert has reported that there are several horizontal lines on the screen and picture vibrations continuously from the time of switch on the TV to its switch off. The problem is, complaint to the display panel of the TV. The panel cannot be repaired and same has to be substituted. Apart from the above defects the TV is working and no other material defects were noted. To make the TV to its normal display condition, the cost required Rs.40,000/- as cost of panel and Rs.5,000/- as transportation and service charges. On enquiry it is revealed that the above model TV is not being marketed by the Sony Company. So there may be difficulty in obtaining the spare panel unless the company itself supply the same.
In view of the aforesaid report, the issue for our consideration is as to whether the value of the panel Rs.40,000/- as per policy document or Rs.21,112/- as assessed by OP 4 after deducting 40% as deduction percentage and salvage amount by the OP4 Insurance company is eligible to the complainant. It is not under dispute that the TV purchased on 2016 and when the insurance there of, was taken by the complainant on 24/08/2016 from the OP4 for a period of 09/08/2017 to 08/08/2020, Insurance company acknowledged the value of the TV at Rs.75,500/- as sum assured. It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid premium of Rs.9546/- to the insurance company on this value, which was duly received by the OP4 Company. It is also not in dispute that on 21/08/2018, OP4 has given Rs.33,300/- for the 1st claim preferred by the complainant due to display complaint. Then the balance sum assured was Rs.42,200/-. After that in August 2019 complainant preferred claim to OP4 for repairing the TV for the complaint of showing several lines in the screen and picture clarity is lost. In Ext.C1, Expert also reported that the continuous and regular viewing of the TV with horizontal line increasing eye strain and long time viewing is very difficult and opinioned that the panel has to be replaced with new one having cost Rs.40,000/-. There is no dispute that 2nd claim also filed within the insurance period. While assessing the loss in the 2nd claim, the OP4 has assessed the claim amount as Rs.21,112/-only and deduction for aging of the TV and salvage value and recommended that the claim may be settled at Rs.21,112/- accordingly. It is the contention of the complainant’s learned counsel that the insurance in question is a contract for consideration of complainant and OP4 Insurance Company. At the time of entering into the contract, all the details about TV in question were duly declared and made known to Insurance Company and after that, the value of TV was mentioned as Rs.75,500/- on which the premium was paid. Except the use of TV for vision, there is no other physical damage caused from the side of complainant which would depreciate the value of the TV by 40% so as to bring it down to Rs.21,112/- after deducting Rs.16,408/- as aging of the TV, which was denied to accept by the complainant. Here, OPs have no case that the present complaint to the TV was caused due to mishandling of it by the complainant. There is no dispute that the complainant used the TV from 09/08/2016 to August 2019 ie about 3 years. Hence as per our view, a depreciation of 10% per annum can be applied to the TV, then the reduction in value should not be more than Rs.4,000/- because it is not under dispute that at the time taking the extended warranty with policy with OP No.4, the sum assured was Rs.75,500/- after assessing the value of the TV, and duly acknowledged and entered as such in policy document by the Insurance Company and premium was also paid according to the value of TV. In such a situation we do not see any justification for reducing the value of the repaired part by 40% since the TV had not been used by the complainant for a period of 3 years and to this extent, we have assessed 10% depreciation in the value of panel.
Now the next question to be considered, whether OPs 1 to 3 are liable to pay the claim amount to complainant. It is not disputed that the TV was purchased from OP No.1 and manufactured by OP No.2. With regard to OP No.3, they are the financier who financed the complainant for purchasing the TV in dispute as per agreement Ext.B1. There is no dispute that the complainant had remitted the entire loan amount and it became closed. So after closing the loan amount there will be no relation between them. So in the present dispute OP No.3 has no role. It is to be noted that the expert has reported in Ext.C1 report “that the model TV in dispute is not being marketed by the OP No.2 Company, so there may be difficulty in obtaining the spare panel unless the company itself supply the same”. In such circumstances, OPs 1 and 2 cannot be avoided from their liability as authorized dealer and manufacture of the product in dispute.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1,2 and 4 are directed to replace the panel of the TV with new defect free new one if available in the company and make the TV in question in a working condition. The complainant shall pay 10% of the value of panel to opposite parties 1 and 2 and the balance amount of panel shall bear by Opposite party No.4. Otherwise taken back the TV, and pay the value of TV, Rs.79,035.87/- after deducting 10% as depreciation, by OPs 1,2 and 4. Opposite parties 1,2 and 4 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expense to the complainant. Opposite parties 1,2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to comply the order. Failing which the amount entitled to be paid by the opposite parties as value of TV, with compensation, shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Tax invoice dated 09/08/2016
A2- Warranty card
A3- Policy
A4- Account statement dated 20/10/2017
A5- Letter assessing total loss claim
A6- Reply dated 17/09/2019
A7- Acknowledgment card
Pw1- Complainant
Dw1- Vyshnav C- Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
