KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 957/2015
JUDGMENT DATED:09.08.2018
(Against the order in C.C. 183/2014 of CDRF, Alappuzha)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi -110 044 (Through its Authorized Signatory Ms. Meena Bose).
- The Manager, Madona Care Centre, Jewel Shopping Complex, Mullackal, Alappuzha.
- Nandilath G. Mart, Global Electronic and Home Appliances, Building No. 44/1065 A, Nehru Bhavan, New Bazar, Alappuzha.
(By Adv. Fathima. S)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Satheesan, Snehitha, Kalavoor P.O, Alappuzha.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Opposite parties in C.C. No. 183/2014 on the file of CDRF Alappuzha have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the Forum directing them to rectify the defects of a TV of the complainant on receiving an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of repair. Opposite parties were directed to comply the order within one month. Aggrieved by that order they preferred this appeal.
2. Complainant who purchased the T.V set having model No. KLV-32 R 402 A manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 3rd opposite party dealer for a price of Rs. 32,400/- on 13.09.2013 lodged the complaint alleging that within the warranty period the TV set was found to be faulty, having serious defects. Alleging that such defects arose from manufacturing defects and that the demands made for repair were not attended to by the opposite parties, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service by the opposite parties, to direct the opposite parties to replace the TV set with a defect free set or to refund the price of Rs. 23400/-. Opposite parties filed a joint version resisting the claim contending that the inspection carried out by its technical team on receiving complaint from the complainant disclosed that back panel of the TV was broken on impact with some external agency and that such defect was not covered by the warranty given for the set. There was no manufacturing defect of the TV, and to repair the TV an estimate for a sum of Rs. 15,648/- was given to the complainant for replacement of the broken panel and cure defects which arose consequent to the breaking of the panel by an external force. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties was their case to dispute the claims raised by the complainant.
3. An expert commissioner was appointed on the request of the complainant to ascertain the defects of the TV set, and after inspection the expert filed Ext. C1 report.
4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A5 on his side. No evidence oral or documentary was tendered by the opposite parties. The commissioner who inspected the TV was examined as CW1 and the report was marked Ext. C1. Appreciating the materials produced by both sides the Forum below after holding that manufacturing defect of the TV set alleged by the complainant has not been established by him passed the order impugned with direction as stated earlier observing that since the defect of the TV set had occurred within the warranty the manufacturer should show a liberal attitude towards the customer. Challenging that order opposite parties have filed this appeal.
5. We heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute that the TV set purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties, during its warranty period, showed some serious defects. The crucial question is whether the defects of the TV set arose from its manufacture or on account of some external object colliding with the back of the TV breaking its panel and causing other defects to the TV set as well. The commission taken out by the complainant for inspection of the set through a TV mechanic disclosed that the breaking of the back panel of the TV arose on account of its contact with some external agency. His Ext. C1 report was found not acceptable since his evidence as CW1 disclosed that he had no special qualification to show his expertise in assessing damages and maintenance of TV set. The fact remains that he was suggested as an expert by the complainant as he being a TV mechanic. May be he has some technical knowledge to assess the damages of the TV set. The commissioner has not opened the TV set to assess what are its damages. So his evidence including the report filed cannot be given much value as held by the lower Forum. Apart from the commission report which is found unacceptable complainant has not tendered any material to show that the TV set purchased from the opposite parties had manufacturing defects. The burden was on the complainant to establish that the TV has manufacturing defects to sustain his claim for compensation. His interested testimony cannot be given much significance in support of his case especially where it was disclosed that the panel on the back side of the TV was found broken indicating that such damages could have been caused only with an impact from an external agency. The lower Forum, however, held that the manufacturer should show liberal attitude towards the customer when the product sold by them showed defects within the warranty period. Manufacturer is bound under the warranty to replace the product or repair the defect only if it is shown that the defect is a manufacturing defect. That having not been established in the case.
7. Complainant was not entitled to any relief from the Forum. The order passed by the lower Forum with direction to opposite parties to repair the TV set is erroneous and unsustainable. We set aside that order and dismiss the complaint, directing both parties to suffer their respective costs.
Appeal is allowed.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
