BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.303/2011 (R)

DATED ON THIS THE 15^th September 2017

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

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                          B.E., LLB., PGDCLP    - MEMBER

Sri SHIVAKUMARASWAMY.H.M,

President

1.     This complaint is filed by the complainant for a direction to the opposite parties to repair the TV set or to replace the TV set with new one or to refund the price of the said goods to the complainant with cost and such other reliefs.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that on 04.12.2010 the complainant has purchased the Sony LED TV from opposite party No.3 who is the authorised dealer of opposite party No.1.  On 07.01.2011 the TV went out of order since it is the defective one.  Immediately complaint was given to opposite party Nos.2 and 3.  Then service engineer of opposite party No.2 inspected the TV and issued an estimate charge assigning the reason that the LED panel is damaged and it has to be replaced.  Further, it is told by opposite party No.2 that there is no manufacturing defect since panel is damaged, it does not covers the warranty.  Then the complainant issued legal notice to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 has issued an untenable reply.  Hence, this complaint is filed.  
3.     Initially, all the opposite parties served with notice, opposite party No.3 absent, placed exparte and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 i.e. manufacturer and service centre appeared before this Forum and filed the version contending that these opposite parties are not liable to provide warranty services wherein the defect has been caused due to accident or excessive shock which is the only manner that the screen of the LED can get damaged.  Thereby, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the complaint.  Then this Forum after recording the evidence of both sides, passed an order on 27.07.2013 dismissing the complaint.  The said order dated 27.07.2013 is challenged by the complainant before this Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.1314/2013.  The said appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble State Commission as per the order dated 16.09.2016 and the matter was remanded to this Forum with a direction to provide opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence and to dispose of the matter.  After remand, notice are issued to both parties, complainant and opposite party No.1 appeared and represented through their advocate, whereas opposite party Nos.2 and 3 absent placed exparte.  In the further evidence, opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  Apart from that at the request of complainant, the commissioner was appointed to inspect the product.  The commissioner has submitted the report.  Heard the arguments of advocate for complainant only.  Opposite party No.1 and his advocate absent, not submitted any arguments.  Then this matter is set down for orders.  
4.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not providing proper service or in not replacing the defective TV set, thereby complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
2. What order?

5.    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 ::

6.    Point No.1:- To establish his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and also relied on the documents.  Evidence of complainant is to the effect that on 04.12.2010 he has purchased LED TV from opposite party No.3 for Rs.47,502/-.  Within the warranty period, there is defect in the LED set.  Thereby, he has requested to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to set right the defect in the TV or to supplying the defect free new product, that has not been done by opposite party Nos.2 and 3.  Thereby, the complainant has caused the demand notice to opposite party Nos.2 and 3.  But, they have not attended the queries of the complainant.  Thereby, he has filed this complaint.
7.    The contention of opposite party No.1 is that there is no internal damage to the set.  On the other hand, the defect is due to external damage to TV set it has been caused by the complainant that does not cover the warranty.  Thereby, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 are not liable to answer the claim in question.
8.    After remand of this case, the commissioner was appointed to inspect the product in question i.e. TV.  The commissioner has inspected the product in the house of complainant and he has observed that during such investigation he found that “there is internal damage to LED panel at the bottom at the right side head which has subsequently developed the cracks due to which the display of the picture is not proper, on examination of the external surface of the television, he did not find any severe impact or blend force caused to the external body, due to which the internal panel is damaged.  So from this evidence and his opinion, at the time of assembling the panel there may be a slight damage which has subsequently developed after the usuage of TV for 7 weeks and impact of the same is affected the display of the picture”.  So from the report of the commissioner, it is clear that there is defect in the internal part of TV, thereby, the opposite parties are liable to answer the claim in question. Non-attending of the queries raised by the complainant who is a consumer of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service.  Thereby, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.  Hence,  Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
9.  Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite parties are liable to answer the claim in question.  The complainant has requested for removal of defect pointed out in the TV and to keep the same in working condition or to replace the TV set with new one with similar description or to refund the amount to the complainant.  Since the transaction is of 2010-11, we are in 2017, there is no point in directing the opposite parties to provide TV with similar characteristics.  Thereby, this Forum finds that it is a fit case to direct the opposite parties to refund the value of TV i.e. Rs.47,502/- by receiving the defective TV from the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.  Hence, the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed receive the produce and to refund the value of product i.e. Rs.47,502/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 04.12.2010 till payment.
3. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.  Failing which, the said total sum of Rs.12,000/- shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order 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.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 15^th September 2017)