Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant purchased an Onida LED-3D-40 inches TV from OP-1 dealer Adishwar India Limited, Bangalore, on 15.06.2014 for Rs.39,000/-. At the time of purchase, the complainant was assured of a warranty comprising one year for the TV and two additional years for the panel, totaling three years, with a promise of replacement of the entire TV if the panel became defective. However, the warranty card was not issued to the complainant, who was told it would be inside the box and opened only by company executives. In September 2015, approximately one year and three months after purchase, the TV developed a defect affecting the video, though the audio worked. OP-2's executive replaced some parts after collecting Rs.850/- but stated the panel needed replacement at a cost of Rs.37,000/-, nearly the original purchase price. The complainant sent a legal notice on 11.12.2015 demanding replacement, but received no response, leading to the filing of this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service.

OP-1 contended non-joinder of the manufacturer as a necessary party and denied the extended warranty claims and non-issuance of the warranty card. OP-2 denied the allegations of warranty beyond one year and disputed the complainant's claim regarding the panel replacement cost, asserting the defect was not a manufacturing fault and the warranty period had expired.

Both parties filed affidavits and produced documents including the purchase invoice, repair bill, legal notice, and warranty card. The complaint was heard with evidence and arguments from both sides.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as alleged?
  2. What relief or order is appropriate in the circumstances?

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

  • The complainant was assured a three-year warranty (one year for the TV and two years for the panel) including replacement of the TV if the panel failed.
  • The warranty card was not issued at purchase although promised to be inside the box, which was never provided.
  • The TV became defective within approximately 15 months, and repair costs for the panel were prohibitively high, nearly equal to the purchase price.
  • The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to failure to provide warranty documentation and refusal to honor warranty claims.
  • Legal notice sent to OPs was ignored, prompting this complaint.

OP-1's Arguments

  • Complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of the manufacturer, who is a necessary party.
  • Denies extended warranty claims and non-issuance of warranty card; asserts only one-year warranty applied and that warranty card was not withheld.
  • The warranty period expired and the complainant’s allegations are false and frivolous.
  • OP-1 is a dealer, not the manufacturer, and has no liability for warranty beyond sale.
  • Prays for dismissal of the complaint.

OP-2's Arguments

  • Complaint suppresses facts and is filed with insufficient information.
  • Admits one-year warranty on the date of purchase but denies any three-year warranty assurances or documents.
  • Denies that the Onida executive informed the complainant about panel replacement costing Rs.37,000/-.
  • Claims defect is not a manufacturing fault and repair is outside warranty as the period has expired.
  • Asserts complainant filed complaint to avoid repair costs and seeks dismissal.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the evidence, including the purchase invoice, repair bill, legal notice, and affidavits. It noted the uncontested fact that the complainant purchased the TV for Rs.39,000/- and that the warranty card was not issued at the time of sale as promised. The court rejected OP-1’s defence of non-joinder of the manufacturer, since the manufacturer was made a party as OP-2. The court found the complainant’s assertion that the warranty card was withheld credible, and held that selling the TV without issuing the warranty card constituted deficiency in service. The court also found that denial of warranty benefits based on a warranty card that was never issued amounted to unfair trade practice. The defect in the TV’s video function arose within approximately one year of purchase, supported by the repair bill evidencing service charges and the need for panel replacement. OP-2’s admission that the executive visited the complainant and the defect existed further supported the complainant’s claim. The court concluded the TV was defective and that OPs were jointly and severally liable to replace the TV with a new one or an equivalent model.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The complaint is allowed in part. OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the same model of Onida LED-3D 40 TV or any other model of equivalent value within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Implications: The decision directly affects the parties by mandating replacement of the defective TV by the dealer and manufacturer jointly. No broader precedent was established beyond the facts of this case concerning warranty issuance and deficiency in service.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    N. Kavitha Kumari v. Adishwar India Ltd. and Others

    SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) to replace Onida LED-3D-40 inches TV on the allegation of deficiency of service.

    2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows: On 15.06.2014 complainant purchased one Onida LED-3D-40 inches TV from OP-1 dealer Adishwar India Limited, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The executive of OP assured at the time of purchase that the said TV has got one year warranty and two years for the panel of the TV totally three years warranty and if anything happens to the panel then the whole TV will be replaced with new one. At the time of purchase of the TV OP has not issued the warranty card to the complainant. OP informed that the warranty card will be inside the box piece and it will not be opened by the showroom people and will Complaint No.257/2016 be opened by the Company executive. Complainant is not aware of the warranty card and further the showroom person informed that they have given the cash receipt at the time of purchase which is more than enough. Now when complainant is demanding the details of the warranty card which is not issued to her, now OP is telling that complainant should have asked at the time of purchase only. Hence, complainant called Onida Customer Care and they informed that the TV has got three years of warranty. When complainant called the executive of Onida he replied stating that if the customer care person has given three years warranty, then complainant can get the TV repaired by calling them and not to call the customer care person. In the month of September 2015 the said LED TV became defective its audio was working properly, but not the video. Complainant called Onida TV executive to check the problem. The executive said that some parts of the TV has been damaged. He checked and replaced some parts by collecting Rs.850/- as service charges and also informed her that one more part i.e., panel is to be replaced. Hence, he suggested to replace the damaged LED TV panel which is costing around Rs.37,000/- which is almost the value of the new LED TV which complainant has purchased one year ago. If it is around Rs.5,000/- or Rs.8,000/- then complainant would have arranged the amount and got her TV repaired, but the cost is almost the same as it was at the time of purchase. Hence, it is not affordable by the complainant. So, complainant requested to fulfil the loss as she was misguided and mislead by showroom person. On 11.12.2015 complainant sent a notice to OP 1 & 2 dealer and the manufacturer calling upon OPs to replace the said Complaint No.257/2016 Onida LED-3D 40 TV (as the picture is not panelled by the TV) within 15 days, failing which she will file a complaint before the Consumer Forum. Inspite of service of notice, there was no response from OP. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances, she is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

    3. On appearance OP 1 filed their version contending that complainant has not made manufacturer as a necessary party to this complaint. hence, complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. OP-1 admits that the complainant purchased Onida LED-3D-40 inches TV for an amount of Rs.39,000/- from OP-1 on 15.06.2014. OP-1 denies that its executive has given one year warranty for TV and two years for the TV panel totally three years warranty, in case of anything happens to the panel then the whole TV will be replaced with the new one. Further OP-1 denied that at the time of purchase of the TV they have not issued warranty card and it will be inside the box piece and denied the further averments made in the complaint as false. OP-1 submits that in the present complaint the warranty period of one year has lapsed. Though the complainant aware of this fact filed this false and frivolous complaint by making false allegations against the OPs. The complainant has no local standi to file the present complaint. If there exist any guarantee and warrantee on the particular model from the date of purchase the complainant is at libery to approach the authorized service centre of the manufacturer for rectification of defects of the TV within the period of warranty. OP-1 is only a dealer Complaint No.257/2016 and not manufacturer. Warranty and guarantee provided by manufacturer, there are no latches on the part of the OP-1 and no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. Among other grounds OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

    4. On appearance OP-2 filed version contending that the complainant filed this complaint suppressing the realities and circumstances of the case with insufficient information. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 admits that complainant purchased TV from OP-1 on 15.06.2014. On the date of purchase the said TV carries one year warranty. The allegations of the complainant that she is having three years warranty as assured by OP and for that no documents are produced. Complainant has created cooked up story and misguided this Honble Forum. Complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 admits that complainant registered the complaint with OP-2 and Onida Executive has visited the complainants house and intimated that panel had to be replaced at the cost of Rs.37,000/- is denied by OP-2. Complainant with an intention to make illegal benefits has filed this complaint. There is no cause of action to the case. OP-2 submits that complainant purchased LED Onida TV from OP-1 along with bill dated 15.06.2014. On the same day produced the warranty card along with instruction card, user manuals and warranty card to the complainant. Complainant had agreed that TV is working from the date of purchase, but problem raised after completion of 1 year. Hence, it is clear that there is no defect in the said TV except video is not working, is not manufacturer defect. Hence, complaint is liable Complaint No.257/2016 to be dismissed. Complainant has approached this forum after completion of the warranty only with an intention that the repair cost is more. When once the warranty period is completed the manufacturer is also not liable to compensate the same. The complainant has to get repaired at her own costs. Complainant with an intention to change the TV instead of getting it repair, raised illegal and unethical issues before this Honble Forum. Among other grounds OP-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

    5. In support of complaint averments, Smt.N.Kavitha Kumari, who being the complainant in this case filed her affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments and also produced documents.

    6. We have perused the documents produced by the complainant. Document No.1 is copy of the authorisation letter dated 27.01.2016 issued by Smt.Latha.S. in favour of the complainant Smt. Kavitha Kumari dated 27.01.2016 authorising her to attend the case. Document No.2 is copy of the receipt/invoice issued by OP-1 in favour of Smt.Latha.S. dated 15.06.2014 for having purchased Onida LED-3D-40 TV for a sum of Rs.39,000/-. Document No.3 is copy of the invoice/cash memo dated 30.11.2015 issued by Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore in favour of Mrs.Kavitha Kumari dated 30.11.2015, the bill showing Rs.850/- paid towards repairs/service charges. Document No.4 is copy of the legal notice dated 11.12.2015 issued by Complaint No.257/2016 Smt.Latha.S calling upon OP 1 & 2 to replace the Onida LED-3D-40 inches TV with a new one within 15 days, failing which complainant will approach the Consumer Forum for redressal.

    7. In support of the defence version Nirmal Jain, the Executive Director of OP-1 Company filed affidavit by way of evidence and produced warranty card and also filed written arguments.

    8. Mr.Chandra Mouli.A.N. Mobile Circle Head in the office of OP-2 filed his affidavit by way of evidence.

    9. Now the points that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

    1) Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint?

    2) For what relief/order?

    10. Our answer to the above points:

    1. Point No.1: In Affirmative

    2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following Complaint No.257/2016 REASONS

    11. POINT NO.1: At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant purchased Onida LED 3D-40 TV from OP-1 dealer, Adishwar India Ltd., Bangalore on 15.06.2014 by paying a sum of Rs.39,000/- by using the credit card of her friend Smt.Latha.S as per Document No.1, the authorisation letter is given by her friend Smt.Latha.S to conduct the case on her behalf as she is not in a position to attend the court proceedings. The fact of payment of Rs.39,000/- was evidenced by producing the receipt issued by OP-1 dealer as per Document N.2, Invoice. OP-1 has not issued warranty card at the time of selling the said TV and promised the complainant that the warranty card will be inside the box along with the TV. Further OPs assured to the complainant that invoice itself is sufficient and TV has got one year warranty and panel has got two years, totally TV has got three (3) years of warranty. In September 2015 i.e., after one year 3 months of its purchase the said LED TV became defective in respect of video. On 30.11.2015 as per Document No.3, cash memo, the executive of OP-2 collected Rs.850/- and replaced some parts and further informed that panel of the TV is damaged, it has to be replaced by spending Rs.37,000/- which is almost the cost of the TV. Inspite of service of legal notice OP failed to replace the TV. Hence, this complaint.

    12. As against the case of the complainant the main defence of OP 1 is complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. There is no basis for this defence since complainant has made the company Complaint No.257/2016 as OP-2 in this case. Further, it is contended by OP 1 & 2 is that since one year warranty period has been expired, they are not liable for the damage caused to the TV. It is specifically contended by the complainant that warranty card is not issued to the complainant at the time of purchase. The selling, supplying of LED TV without warranty card itself amounts to deficiency in service. Further denying the warranty benefits based on warranty card which is not issued to the complainant is also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs have failed to produce any document to show that warranty card was issued to the complainant at the time of purchase of TV. Complainant having paid such a huge amount of Rs.39,000/- could not make use of the TV. The complainant has sworn to the fact that the said LED TV became defective in the month of September 2015 i.e., even before 1 year of its purchase the said LED TV became defective. This fact is evident from the bill issued by OP-2 as per Document No.3. OP-2 also admits this fact in para-3 of its version that Onida executive has visited the complainants house, video is not working which is not a manufacturing defect etc. Under the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Onida TV supplied to the complainant is a defective one. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OPs are jointly and severally liable to replace the said Onida LED TV with a new Onida LED TV 3D-40 to the complainant, if not available any other model of the same value. We are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OP 1 & 2. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: Complaint No.257/2016 ORDER

    1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

    2. OP 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the same model of Onida LED-3D 40 TV or any other model of the same value to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

    3. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Forum by us on this the 17th day of November 2016) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT NRS* Complaint No.257/2016 COMPLAINT NO.257/2016 Complainant Opposite Parties Smt.N.Kavitha Kumari, #186, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, R.T.Nagar (Post), Bangalore-560032.

    1. Adishwar India Limited., 1st N-Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560010.

    2. Micr Electronics Limited,

    80 feet Road, Girinagar 4th Phase, Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore-560085. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 29.06.2016

    1) Smt.Kavitha Kumari LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT

    1. Doc. No.1 is copy of the authorisation letter dated 27.01.2016

    2. Doc. No.2 is copy of the receipt/invoice issued by OP-1 in favour of Smt.Latha.S dated 15.06.2014

    3. Doc No.3 is copy of the invoice/cash memo dated 30.11.2015 issued by Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

    4. Doc No.4 is copy of the legal notice dated 11.12.2015 Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP-1 dated 07.09.2016

    1) Sri.Nirmal Jain, Executive Director of OP-1

    2) Sri.Chandramouli.A.N. Mobile Circle Head of OP-2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OP-1

    1. Doc. No.1 is warranty card MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    N. Kavitha Kumari v. Adishwar India Ltd. and Others
    (Dec 17, 2016)