IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA 

Thursday,   the 28th     day of September, 2017

Filed on 19.01.2015.

Present

    

1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

CC/No.20/2017

 Between

Complainant:           Opposite parties:

 

Sri.Georgekutty    1. M/s V.S.K.Home Shoppe

Naduvelithayil                                     Kacheri Junction

Karuvatta North             Haripad

Alappuzha.

2. Thoshiba  India Pvt. Ltd

3rd Floor, Building No.10-B

DLF Cybercity

Gurgaon-122 002

 

 

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

The complainant purchased a LED TV from the 1st opposite party manufactured by 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 38,900/- on 6/8/15.  The opposite parties assured 3 years warranty for the product.   During the warranty period the product became defective and defect has been intimated to the opposite parties, but the opposite party failed to rectify the defect and complainant could not use the TV.  There after the complainant has sent a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding to rectify the defects, but the opposite party failed to do so.  Complainant sustained much mental agony and inconvenience and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the TV together with compensation and cost.  

2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-

 

There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party.   It’s true that the complainant had purchased a Thosibha LED TV from the 1st opposite party and at the time of purchase itself the 1st opposite party issued warranty card. The complainant had registered a complaint through the 1st opposite party and same was forwarded to 2nd opposite party and the technician of the 2nd opposite party attended the complaint.  The duty of the 1st opposite party is to sale goods and intimates the manufacturer in case of any defects.  The first opposite party has no role in that matter and hence if at all delay in service or laches are made by them are not responsible by the first opposite party.  That  it is submitted that all the matters regarding the warranty and service is between the complainant and the second opposite party only and in that regard the first opposite party is not responsible for any acts or inaction from the part of second opposite party they made any such acts.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed case the 1st opposite party.

3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-

The complainant purchased a Thosibha TV from the 1st opposite party on 6/8/15.  The said TV was perfect working at the time of delivery and on the same day it was installed at the residence of the complainant.  2nd opposite party provide a warranty of one year only to the LCD TV.  The opposite party strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provide by it. This opposite party is not liable in the claim following outside   scope of warranty terms.  The opposite party is liable to repair product the during the validity period of the warranty.  In the instant case the complainant made only one complaint on 15.08.2016 ie., after expiry of one year warranty for the LCD.  This complaint was registered with Sr.No. TIPLSR8H0026816 for no picture and the engineer of the authorized service centre (ASP) visited residence of the complainant and checked the LCD and warranty documents of the LCD.  At which time, the complainant provided a warranty card for the “PC, PB and PS Series TV” and informed that the same was provided to him by the opposite party No.1 as a part of onam offer.  On complainant’s request, the engineer escalated the complainant’s complaint to senior management of the answering opposite party, who on inspection confirmed that the warranty card provided by the complainant was for warranty card annexed with the complaint pertains to “PC, PB and PS series TV” and not for the complaint’s LCD Model 40L2400ZE.  Therefore, the complainant was informed that the warranty card provided by the complainant was not valid for the complainant’s LCD Model 40L2400ZE, which carried only one year warranty, and since the complainant had filed his complaint after the expiry of one year warranty of complaint’s LCD Model 40L2400ZE, any repair service can be provided on chargeable basis only, which the complainant refused to accept and filed the instant complaint.  It is submitted that the complainant must be put to strict proof that the answering opposite party provided three years warranty on the complainant’s LCD model 40L2400ZE.  In the view of  facts and circumstances, the answering opposite party  submits that the answering opposite party is not liable to replace the LCD, or repair the LCD for free, or refund the price of the LCD, or pay any compensation for mental pain, agony or harassment, or any cost, expense or interest whatsoever.  The answering opposite party submits that the complaint against the answering opposite party is frivolous vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked.

5.    Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite parties the Forum has raised the following issues:-

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?

           6. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a TV from the  1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 38,900/- on 6/8/15.  The opposite party issued warranty card to the complainant assuring 3 years warranty for the product.  The product became defective during the warranty period and the defect was intimated to both the opposite parties, but defect has not been rectified so far.  According to the complainant they could not use the TV.  The act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.  Hence filed this complaint.

The specific case of the complainant is that the product he purchased has 3 years warranty.  According to the 2nd opposite party the product purchased by the complainant has only one year warranty.    According to the 1st opposite party the product was sold by him and he gave the warranty card to the complainant which is enclosed in the packing of the said TV. In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant, the complainant produced 4 documents before the Forum which were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A4.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 6/8/15. Ext.A2 is the warranty card dated 6/8/15.  Ext.A3 is the legal notice dated 5/11/16.  Ext.A4 series are the postal receipts and acknowledgement card.  From the documents it can be seen that complainant purchased a TV manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and warranty card shows that the product has 3 years warranty.  It is pertinent to note that Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 are on the same date.  According to the complainant he purchased a TV honestly believing assurance given by the opposite parties regarding the warranty and after sale service.   At the time of hearing the 1st opposite party stated that he issued warranty card to the complainant which was enclosed with packing of the TV which was purchased by the complainant. According to the 2nd opposite party the product which was purchased by complainant actually has only one year warranty.  But nothing was produced in evidence to substantiate their contention that said model TV purchased by the complainant has only one year warranty.  In the absence of any cogent and concrete evidence the contention of the opposite party is not sustainable.  Admittedly the warranty card was issued to the complainant at the time of purchase of the TV and the said warranty cards shows that the product is under warranty.   Since the defect of the product is not been rectified   even after getting an intimation amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the TV free of cost to the complainant.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation no order as to costs.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipts of this order, failing which the  opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the TV  after deducting 10% depreciation  together with 8% interest from the date of order till realization.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me an pronounced 

in open Forum on this the 28th  day of  September, 2017.

 

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

     Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)

    Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member)

                       

 

 

 Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1 - Bency Sibichen(Witness)

Ext.A1  - Retail Invoice Dtd.6/8/15

Ext.A2 - Warranty card

Ext.A3 - Legal Notice dtd.5/11/16

Ext.A4. - Postal receipts and acknowledgement card

Evidence of the opposite party:-  Nil

 

 

//True copy//

 

       By Order

 

 

 

Senior Superintendent

To

Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

 

Typed by: Br/-

Comped . by:-