Ernakulam District Commission Holds Philips India And Bismi Appliances Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Refusal Of LED TV Warranty

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (“Commission”) comprising D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Philips India and Bismi Appliances liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for refusing warranty service to a complainant who had purchased a Philips LED TV. Background Facts In 2015, Sunitha Binukumar (“Complainant”), a housewife from Kochi purchased a Philips LED TV (Model 39PFL3539) for Rs. 27,000 from Bismi Appliances (“OP 1”). Along with the purchase she also took a “Bismi Care” extended warranty for Rs.2,690 which assured her that once the manufacturer's three-year warranty expired, an additional two years of identical coverage would follow, making the total warranty period five years. In May 2018, just after the manufacturer's warranty ended and during the extended warranty period, the TV developed a sound defect. Sunitha reported the issue to the dealer but instead of providing free service under warranty, the authorised service Centre (“OP 3”) demanded Rs. 2,200 for repairs and categorised her complaint as a “paid” service. The dealer also refused to honour the extended warranty. Therefore, being aggrieved the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking free repair under the extended warranty or in the alternative compensation of Rs.25,000 for mental agony along with costs of proceedings. Observation and Direction by Commission Commission observed that the service centre (OP-3) had no authorisation to repair Philips televisions and no contractual relationship with the complainant and therefore could not be held liable. Commission observed that Bismi Appliances and Philips India having failed to file their versions despite notice effectively admitted the allegations against them. Their conduct was found to be deliberate, arbitrary and unfair causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Commission held that the refusal to provide free repairs under the extended warranty was a breach of contractual obligations and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It further held that Bismi Appliances and Philips India had committed deficiency in service and engaged in unfair trade practices by denying the complainant warranty service. As a result, the Commission directed Bismi Appliances and Philips India to repair the complainant's TV free of cost. If repair was not possible, they were ordered to refund 50% of the original purchase price amounting to Rs. 13,500 by taking into account depreciation at the time the defect arose. In addition, the Commission ordered them to pay Rs. 15,000 as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and hardship caused along with Rs. 5,000 towards litigation costs. Case – Sunitha Binukumar Versus M/s Bismi Appliances & others Citation - CC. No. 300 of 2018Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Philips India And Bismi Appliances Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Refusal Of LED TV Warranty

Aryan Raj

Tags