SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 33714

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
PUTHRAN R – Respondent
SC/32/A/408/2021



Petitioner Advocates:LINU R BABU ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/408/2021 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - A- 24/6 MOHAN CO OPERATIVES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MATHURA ROAD DELHI 110044 ,KERALA.

THE OFFICER IN CHARGE REGISTERED OFFICE L G ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - A WING 3 RD FLOOR D3 DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET NEWDELHI

110017 ,KERALA.

SH DON AREA SALES MANAGER L G ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 34/565B FIRST FLOOR FORTUNE ARCADE N H BYEPASS PALARIVATTOM ERNAKULAM 682024 ,KERALA.

THE MANAGER IN CHARGE PIONEER ELECTRONICS SERVICE CENTRE PRESENT ADDRESS - NEAR PAZHAVEEDU TEMPLE PAZAVEEDU ALAPPUZHA ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PUTHRAN R PRESENT ADDRESS - VADAKKEPARAMBU PUNNAPRA NORTH ALAPPUZHA 688004 ,KERALA.

SH RAMESH BABU ASSISTANT MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - KERALA POLICE SUBSIDIARY CANTEEN AR CAMP BAZAR P O ALAPPUZHA ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 07/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 408/2021 JUDGMENT DATED:07.07.2025 (Against the order in C.C. No.126/2020 on the files of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1.

LG Electronics India Private Limited, A-24/6, Mohan Co-operatives, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi – 110 044

2.

The Officer in Charge Registered Office, LG Electronics India Private Ltd., rd A Wing, 3 Floor, D3, District Centre-SAKET, New Delhi – 110 017

3.

Sh. Don Area Sales Manager, LG Electronics India Private Ltd., 34/565B, 1 st Floor, Fortune Arcade, N.H. Bypass, Palarivattom, Ernakulam –

682 024

4.

The Manager in Charge, Pioneer Electronics (Service Centre), Near Pazhaveedu Temple, Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha (by Adv. Nithya S., Amicus Curiae)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Puthran R., Vadakkeparambu, Punnapra North, Alappuzha – 688 004 (Party in person)

2.

Ramesh Babu, Assistant Manager, Kerala Police Subsidiary Canteen, A.R.

Camp, Bazar P.O., Alappuzha

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 2 to 5 in C.C.No.126/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

st

2. The complainant purchased an LED TV from the 1 opposite party on

06.09.2019 for Rs.40,001.63/-. After installation, the said TV was functioning properly. However, on 06.02.2020, while the complainant and his wife were watching the programme, there was a sound from the TV and thereafter, the display of the TV disappeared. A red light was seen on the screen. The complainant immediately switched off the TV for some time. Thereafter, when the complainant switched on the TV, only some lines were seen on the screen. The complainant informed the matter to st the 1 opposite party who sent a technician to inspect the TV. After inspecting the TV, the complainant was informed that certain parts of the TV had physical damage. In order to replace the said parts, an amount of Rs.20,000/- had to be paid by the complainant as the said parts were not covered by the warranty. The complainant contended that since the TV was having warranty, the opposite parties were bound to replace the parts free of cost. Since that was not done, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties 2 to 5 filed a joint version. The sum and substance of the contentions of the opposite parties is almost similar. The opposite parties admitted st the purchase of the TV by the complainant on 06.09.2019 from the 1 opposite party. The opposite parties also admitted that the TV of the complainant was inspected by the technician of the opposite parties when the complainant had made a complaint about the display of the TV. The op

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top