By Adv. Jatin Ramaiya*
Ankush N Dhuri, resident of Valpoi Sattri, approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa complaining against Haier Appliances and Pathan Traders. In his complaint Dhuri pleaded that at the time of purchase of a television he was told by Pathan Traders that the televisions had a warranty of total three years and the warranty will be applicable from the date of online registration of product within the company and no separate warranty card was issued to him at the time of purchase since the local vendor had informed him that warranty will be updated online.
Dhuri claimed he had registered online complaint through the local dealer that the television was not was not working properly as some vertical and horizontal lines appeared on the screen after 8 – 10 days. A technician of the company visited his house took some photographs and told that he will give the feedback after discussing with the service manager. But there was no response from him for some days after which on calling the technician told that the screen cannot be repaired and need to be replaced.
Dhuri claimed that, the service manager said, he would have to pay Rs 19,000 for replacement of panel despite informing that the television is within warranty period. After some days, the TV screen totally blacked out. So, he lodged a complaint but the technician again took some photographs and no action was taken. The customer care also failed to solve the problem. He wrote several mails to service manager asking why the panel cannot be replaced when it is under warranty but they failed to reply the same. He even wrote letter to CEO of Haier but there was no response.
Dhuri claimed that whenever there is a major defect in the products and whenever they do not want to repair or replace the company representatives give reasons that customer has not handled the product properly. Notice of the complaint was sent to Haier and the local vendor of the company. The members of the Fourm held that, though the complainant has not produced the warranty it is seen that there is no denial of the pleadings of the complainant that the TV is under warranty for a period of three years. “The complainant has also produced the photographs of the TV and email correspondence requesting for the copy of warranty at the earliest.”
The Forum held that no expert report was required because there is no dispute about the defect to the TV pointed by Complainant and therefore the contents of the complaint should be treated as admitted. In view of above, the Forum held that Haier and its local vendor is liable to pay Dhuri a sum of Rs 26,500 or to replace the TV set within 30 days in addition to compensation of Rs 10,000 and costs of Rs 5000.