BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.365/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 13^th July 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to supply new Sony LED TV by receiving the old TV and directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of the proceedings.  
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased Sony LED TV on 30.10.2016 for Rs.54,500/- from opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.1.  Around 15 days later, there is complaint in functioning of the TV and there is display problem. Thereby, complaint was lodged to the customer care.  The service executive inspected the said TV and not done his job properly.  TV was in warranty period, opposite parties did not make any arrangements to replace TV.  Opposite party No.1 has supplied defective TV and the same was sold by opposite party No.2 which amounts to deficiency of service.  Thereby, on 17.10.2017 a legal notice was issued to the opposite parties.  On the advice of opposite party No.1, the TV was taken to the service center at Panchamantra Road, Kuvempungar, Mysuru on 18.10.2017.  Later, the service center return the TV to the complainant instead of repairing it.  Thereby, another legal notice was issued on 30.10.2017.  There is no reply.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     Both opposite parties served with notice, opposite party No.2 being dealer and service center absent, placed exparte.  Whereas, opposite party No.1 manufacturer alone contested the claim by filing the following version:- False allegations are made in the complaint.  After detailed demonstration of the features and functions of the TV by opposite party No.2, the complainant has purchased the TV on 30.10.2016 with warranty.  Almost, more than 11 months, the TV was properly functioning and only for the first time on 09.10.2017, the complainant has raised the defect in the TV.  Without any delay, the same has been inspected and on inspection, it was observed that LED TV in question was brought in a damaged condition. The penal of LED was broken, it was external damage and it was not cover the warranty.  The display of penal of LED needs to be replaced as got damaged due to external cause.  Hence, service center shared an estimated costs for repair the same was rejected by the complainant.  The complainant started raising unreasonable demands and filed the present complaint on baseless allegations. The opposite parties cannot be held liable in any way considering the above said facts.  The legal notice was properly replied.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Thereby, opposite party No.1 sought for dismissal of this complaint.
4.     On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on documents.  Likewise opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit and further evidence closed.  After hearing both sides, this matter is set down for orders.
5.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency of service in not attending the repairs to the TV, thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased Sony LED TV from opposite party No.1 who is authorised dealer and service center of opposite party No.2, manufacture i.e. opposite party No.1 for Rs.54,500/- under tax invoice dated 30.10.2016.  It covers one year warranty from the date of purchase.  There is problem after around 11 months.  Thereby, complainant has produced the TV to the service center.  The complaint under the job sheet is LCD penal bottom (right side) corner patches and colour lines and it is observed that LCD suspected, warranty to reconfirm.  So with this, the opposite party No.1 has taken a contention that due to external impact, there is damage to the penal of the TV.  Thereby, such damages are not covered under the warranty and opposite parties are not liable to answer the claim in question.  As per the allegations made in the complaint, opposite party No.2 has damaged for payment to repair the TV.  But, admittedly, the problems started to the TV within the warranty period.  Thereby, it is the duty of manufacturer and service center to see that TV is properly repaired or in the alternative, the complainant would have been supplied with a new TV that has not been in this case.  Thereby it amounts to deficiency of service.  As such, both opposite parties are liable to answer the claim in question.  The complainant is entitled for the costs of the TV i.e. Rs.54,500/- with interest and also entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
8.   Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of TV i.e. Rs.54,500/- by receiving the old TV from complainant with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 16.12.2017 till payment.  Further, the opposite parties are jointly and severally also liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of the TV i.e. Rs.54,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 16.12.2017 till payment.
3. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.  Failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.27,000/- from the date of this complaint i.e. 16.12.2017 till payment.     
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(