DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Tuesday the 21st day of June 2022
C.C. 363 / 2017
Complainant
- Asha. E.G.
Sreelakam
P.M. Kutty Road
Eranhipalam (po)
Pin: 673006
(By Adv. Sri. Abdul Jaleel Onath)
Opposite Parties
- The Managing Director
Sharp Business System India Pvt. Ltd
214-221-Ansal Tower-38
Nehru Place
New Delhi-110019
(By Adv. Sri. Benny Joseph Kuruvathazha)
- The Manager
QRS Retail Church
Near English Church
Kannur Road
Calicut-11
(set ex-parte)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 07/04/2015 the complainant bought a sharp LED TV from the shop of the second opposite party paying Rs. 33,000/-. The company assured a warranty of 1+2 years. But on 26-09-2015 the TV stopped working due to manufacturing defects. A complaint was registered online on the same day. The company staff examined the TV on the next day and said that the defect was due to failure of its backlight. The backlight was changed and the TV worked back. But the same complaint repeated three times and complaint was registered online and again the company repaired the product. On 27/02/2017 a vertical line was seen on the TV screen and the complainant registered complaint No.718885 online. The company staff inspected the TV and reported that it was due to panel complaint and that they would change it, if there was sufficient stock in the company or it would take 15 days more to change the panel by the stock arrival. The complainant waited and after one month she enquired with the second opposite party who informed that the company would sent details directly by post. On 13/04/2017 she received a letter from the company stating that the panel complaint is not manufacturing defect, but due to external factors like impacts etc. There was no external impact of the product. The company is trying to evade the liability by raising false allegations.
3. Thereafter she issued a lawyer notice. It was replied by the first opposite party by raising untenable contentions. The second opposite party did not respond to the notice. The acts and omissions on their part amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the opposite parties.
4. The first opposite party filed written version. The second opposite party was ex-parte.
5. According to the first opposite party, correct facts to the issue have been supressed by the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant has purchased a LED TV from the shop of the second opposite party on 07/04/2015. It is true that the company assured warranty of 1+2 years. But the said warranty does not cover damage due to external impact. The allegation that on 26/09/2015 the TV stopped working due to manufacturing defects is false and hence denied. The further allegation that an online complaint was registered on the same day and the company staff examined the product on the next day and that the staff informed that the defect was due to failure of backlight is false and hence denied. On 26/09/2015 no complaint was registered. However, on 26/09/2016 the complainant registered the first complaint, pursuant to which, the authorized service centre engineer attended the complaint and the rectified the backlight.
6. On 27/02/2017 another complaint was received which was promptly attended and found a vertical line on the left side of TV screen. But the complaint is not a manufacturing defect, but caused due to external factors like impact. Hence on 07/04/2017 a letter was sent to the complainant informing the real facts and stating that the company was ready to repair the unit on chargeable basis and waited for approval from the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the company. It was the complainant who was not ready for repair of the TV on chargeable basis. None of the reliefs is allowable since there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the company. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair
trade practice on the side of the opposite parties,
as alleged?
(2) Reliefs and costs.
8. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the complaint. RW1 was examined on the side of the first opposite party. No document was marked. The expert was examined as CW1 and the report filed by her was marked as Ext. C1.
9. We heard both sides.
10. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. The specific allegation of the complainant is that the TV sold to her is having manufacturing defect and in spite of registering complaint, there were latches on the part of the opposite parties to redress her grievance.
11. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant got herself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim .Ext. A1 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 07/04/2015, Ext. A2 is the copy of the warranty card, Ext.A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 24/07/2017, Ext. A4 is copy of the letter dated 07/04/2017 of the first opposite party and Ext.A5 is the reply notice dated 31/08/2017.
12. The Area Service Manager of the first opposite party was examined as RW1. RW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the averments in the written version.
13. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a 39 inch LED TV manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party paying Rs. 33,000/- as per Ext.A1. The company assured a warranty of 1+2 years from the date of purchase. Ext.A2 is the copy of the warranty card. PW1 has alleged that on 26/09/2015 she had registered a complaint online since the unit stopped working and the staff of the company inspected the unit on the next day and rectified the defect of backlight. However, this is stoutly denied and disputed by the company. According to the company, no such complaint was registered on 26/09/2015 and in fact a complaint was registered on 26/09/2016 and it was promptly attended and rectified the defect of backlight by the service centre engineer. Nothing is produced by the complainant to show that any such complaint was preferred on 26/09/2015. Again on 27/02/2017 another complaint was registered stating that vertical line was found on the TV screen. The said complaint was also attended by the authorized service centre. According to the company, it was not a manufacturing defect, but caused due to external factors like impact and hence the complainant was informed that the company was ready to repair the unit on chargeable basis since damage due to external impact is not covered under the warranty.
14. The question whether the first complaint was registered on 26/09/2015 or 26/09/2016 is not of much significance in this case. The date of purchase of the product was 07/04/2015. On 27/02/2017 the TV showed complaint and vertical line was seen on the TV screen. A complaint was preferred on that date. The complaint registered on 27/02/2017 is within the warranty period which is 1+2 years from the date of purchase. The contention of the company is that the repair can be only on chargeable basis since the complaint in question is due to external factors like impact, which is not covered under the warranty. So the crucial point to be considered in this case is as to whether the defect is due to external impact or not.
15. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at the evidence tendered by CW1, who is none other than the Assistant Engineer, Electronics section, PWD, Kozhikode and the report filed by her which is marked as Ext.C1.The TV in question was inspected by CW1 in the presence of both the parties. It is reported in Ext.C1 that the LED panel of the TV is damaged. Further it is reported in Ext. C1 that no physical damage is seen anywhere in front of panel or in the LED panel. The expert is of the opinion that the panel is damaged due to manufacturing defect. Thus Ext. C1 rules out any external impact. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve CW1 or to discard Ext. C1. The company has filed objection to Ext.C1. The main objection is that the expert is not qualified and the opinion with regard to manufacturing defect is based on assumption. In this connection, it may be noted that the learned expert has inspected the unit in the presence of both parties. It cannot be said that CW1 is not having the competency and expertise in the field. Even though CW1 was subjected to searching cross examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit her version or discard Ext. C1. Ext.C1 can be relied on and acted upon.
16. As we have already stated, the stand taken by RW1 is that the panel complaint is due to external factors like impact. But the said stand cannot be accepted in the light of Ext.C1 report which rules out any such external impact. The complaint occurred during the warranty period. As the complaint was not due to any external impact, there was no justification on the part of the company in offering chargeable repairs. The complainant is entitled to get the unit repaired free of cost. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and she was not able to enjoy the TV for a long time. She is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
17. Point No. 2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC 363/2017 is allowed in part.
(b)The opposite parties are hereby directed to take
necessary steps to repair the TV ( sold to complainant as per
Ext. A1) and make it in a sound working condition. It is
made clear that the complainant shall not be required to
pay any charge for such repairs.
(c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the
complainant as compensation for the mental agony and
hardship suffered.
(d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as cost of
the proceedings.
(e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the
receipt of the copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 21st day of June, 2022.
Date of Filing: 11/10/2017.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of retail invoice dated 07/04/2015.
Ext. A2 – Copy of warranty card.
Ext .A3 -Copy of the letter issued by complainant`s Advocate.
Ext.A4 – Copy of letter issued by Sharp business system.
Ext. A5- Copy of letter issued by Sharp business system.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW 1 –Asha. E.G.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1-Asok. S. Nair.
Witnesses for the Commission
CW1- Jithesh Pozhakkal
Commission Exhibit
C1- Report filed by expert
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
