DATE OF FILING : 11.8.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  3rd  day of   November,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.170/2017

Between

Complainant       :    Santhosh K.S., S/o. Sudhan,

Kochuparambil House,   

Balagram P.O., Idukki.

(By Advs:  Benny Joseph 

& Sijimon K. Augustine)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1. The Proprietor,

      Highrange Home Appliances, 

      City Plaza Building,

      Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

2.  Jinto, 

               Manager, 

       Highrange Home Appliances,

      City Plaza Building,

      Kattappana P.O., Idukki. 

3.   The General Manager,

      L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,                                                            (Kerala Head), N.H. Byepass,

      Palarivattom, Ernakulam – 682 024.

      (By Advs:  R. Padmaraj 

&   Antony Joseph Mariadas)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Complainant purchased a new L.G. TV from the 1st opposite party after paying Rs.77000/-, on 10.10.2015, manufactured by 3rd opposite party.  At the time of purchase, the 1st opposite party offered one year full replacement guarantee and further prompt service in the event of any complaints occurred and made belief that the above said TV will give very good performance and opposite parties have customer service centres also.  But within 4 months from the date of purchase, the TV showed complaints and the complainant informed the opposite party about this and on 26.7.2016, the complainant registered a complaint as per the advice of the 1st opposite party.  But even after repeated (cont.....2)

-  2  -

demands, opposite party failed to cure the complaint of the TV and consequently the complainant filed a written petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana on 11.9.2016.  Thereafter parties were called to the police station and 1st opposite party undertook to cure the defects of the TV within 7 days.  In the result, opposite party's technician inspected the complainant's TV and found that the board of the TV is damaged and he took it by replacing it with a 2nd hand board as a temporary arrangement.  Thereafter till this date, opposite party have not cared to cure the defect of the TV permanently or replace it to a new one.  Opposite parties jointly and severally bound to cure the defect of the  TV supplied to the complainant.  The above said act of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and clear deficiency in service for which the complainant filed this petition for getting relief such as to direct the opposite parties to replace the damaged TV or else to pay its purchase value with interest from the date of purchase along with cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and 3rd opposite party filed written version contending that a complaint was received in August 2016, through the dealer and the same was attended by the authorised service centre of the company at Idukki.  It was noticed that the PCB was seen burned due to lightning and the same was rectified by replacing the PCB.  Though the damage due to lightning was not covered under warranty, the replacement was done at free of cost.  The opposite party further contended that the complainant was satisfied with the changing of PCB instead he insisted for replacement of the TV itself.  The board replaced to the TV is a new one and not a second hand one as alleged.  It is true that the complainant made a petition to the police and this opposite party convinced the police that the complaint is only due to lightning and replacement of PCB is sufficient and there is no other complaints to the TV.  After receipt of lawyer's notice dated 16.11.2016, this opposite party's service engineers again visited the complainant's place and found that the TV's PCB got damaged due to lightning.  Since the failure due to lightning is not covered under warranty and moreover, the warranty period is expired, the complainant is liable to pay for the replacement cost of the PCB.  

 

Opposite parties 1 and 2 are not turned up to file version and hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 set exparte.  

 

Evidence produced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts.P1 to P3 marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of legal notice with the postal receipt and AD Card.  Ext.P2 is the copy of petition filed before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana,

(cont.....3)

-  3  -

under RTI Act.  Ext.P3 is the reply from the public information officer, Police station, Kattappana, along with the copy of  register. 

 

From the defence side, no oral or documentary evidence adduced.  

 

Heard both sides.

            

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 the counsels for both parties and had gone through the evidence on record.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a TV manufactured by the 3rd opposite party from the 1st opposite party, the authorised agent of the 3rd opposite party, by paying Rs.77,000/-.  Immediately after the purchase, the TV showed some complaints and on intimation, the technician of 3rd opposite party inspected and replaced the PCB (Panel Control Board) of the TV.  The averment of the complainant in this regard is that, the technician of opposite parties took away the panel board and replaced it with a second hand one.  Thereafter repeated request made by the complainant and the opposite party had not turned over to cure the defects of the TV permanently.  So the complainant filed a petition before the local police station and due to intervention of police authorities, opposite party admitted before the police that they will  cure the defect of the TV within one week.  As per Ext.P3, one Jinto and one Anish, manager of opposite party and service engineer of opposite party respectively agreed to cure the defect of TV within one week and this matter is entered in the police register and copy of the register is produced by the complainant along with other document as Ext.P3.  As per the version of opposite party, immediately after the intervention of the police, they again inspected the TV and found that the panel board of the TV is again damaged.  As per the version, the damage of the panel board was caused due to lightning and it is not covered under the warranty and moreover, the warranty period also expired.  In their version, opposite party further contended that once the PCB was replaced with a new one and at that time, the complainant was not satisfied with the changing of PCB instead he insisted for  the replacement of TV itself.  

 

From the evidence on record, it is very clear that the damage to the TV was occurred immediately after its purchase.  It is also noted that the complainant paid a huge amount for purchasing this TV.  This damage is 

(cont.....4)

-  4  -

admitted by the opposite party also.  Once they tried to cure the defect.  But again the defect repeated.  The defect of the panel board was occurred in the first time was done within the warranty period.  From the evidence, it is seen that the defect is not solved by the opposite party permanently.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to cure the defect of their customer to their satisfaction.  The version of the opposite party cannot be acceptable that the defects due to lightning is not covered under warranty, since opposite party is not produced warranty terms and conditions before the Forum.  Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the Forum found that the opposite party is legally bound to cure the defect of the TV without raising lame excuses, to the satisfaction of the customer.  Under the above circumstance, the Forum is of the opinion that the version of the complainant is believable and opposite party is not produced any evidence to counter the allegation levelled against them by the complainant.  

 

Hence the complaint allowed.  The 3rd opposite party is directed to cure the defects of the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost, to the complainant, jointly, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

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

 

Sd/-

    SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

   SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       (cont.....5)

-  5  -

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Santhosh K.S.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1      -  copy of legal notice with the postal receipt and AD Card.  

Ext.P2     -  copy of petition filed before the Sub Inspector of Police,

            Kattappana, under RTI Act.  

Ext.P3     - reply from the public information officer, Police station, Kattappana,

                   along with the copy of  register. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.       

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT