Delhi

North East

CC/393/2014

Mrs. Neelam Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allied Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 393/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Neelam Sharma W/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma R/o 59-D, Pocket- J& K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.	Complainant
	Versus
	Allied Electronics (Through its Owner/Proprietor) H-140A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.   Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd (Through its Area Manager) B-1/a-14, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

24.09.2014 23.04.2018 25.04.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that she had purchased a Haier LED TV model No. LE 24T3 24” (Serial No. DC 1840 ED 1000 Dx A 610620) for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from OP1 (retail outlet/ dealer of OP2(manufacturer) on 11.09.2011 with the assurance of the dealer about the best performance of the said LED. It has been further submitted by the complainant that OP1 apprised her at the time of purchase that there was a four year warranty scheme, which was being given by OP2 to its customers and as such believing the words of OP1, the complainant purchased the said LED. It has been further submitted that OP1 had provided a warranty card for four year warranty scheme issued by OP2 for the above said LED and the complainant installed the said LED at her home. It has been further stated by the complainant that from the very first day she is facing some problems with the said LED but since the LED was working she did not make any complaint. However, in the month of August 2014, the screen / panel of the said LED suddenly became black and nothing was visible and after few minutes the voice also stopped. It has been stated that the complainant called the service centre of OP2 on 18.08.2014 and her complaint was registered vide No. 102648 by the customer care of OP2. The technician of OP2 visited the house of the complainant on 19.08.2014 and inspected the said LED and on inspection, told the complainant that the panel of the said LED has to be changed. The complainant told the technician to change the panel as the panel is under four year warranty and showed him the papers of the said LED. After seeing the warranty card of the said LED, the technician refused to change the LED panel free of cost and demanded the payment of Rs. 5,000/- as the warranty card issued by OP2 was valid for LCD and not LED and OP1 had issued a wrong/invalid card to the complainant and therefore the warranty of LED cannot be given to the complainant against the said warranty card. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP1 on 20.08.2014 where he was told by OP1 that OP1 had issued the same card which was issued for the warranty of the said LED to it by OP2 and there is no fault on its part. Proprietor of OP1 further assured the complainant that he will talk to the company and the LED would be repaired or exchanged free of cost under the same warranty card. On his demand therefore and relying on his assurance, the complainant provided the photocopies of the papers of the said LED to OP1. However since OP1 did nothing to solve the grievance of the complainant except merely registering another complaint no. 103039 dated 20.08.2014 with the customer care of OP2 against which and the complainant received a call from the technician of OP2 asking whether she was ready to pay towards repairs of the said LED to which the complainant refused and the technician refused to entertain any claim of the complainant despite on basis of representation made to her by OP1 of valid warranty. It has been further submitted by the complainant that the act of OPs fall under the deficiency of service and deceptive as well as unfair trade practice as the OP1 deliberately issued a wrong warranty card to the complainant knowing fully well that it was not the actual warranty card issued by OP2 for the warranty of the said LED. The OP2 is also responsible for the act of OP1 as OP1 is the authorized agent of OP2 who sells the products of OP2. According to the complainant the OPs have not only sold the said defective LED to the complainant but also have caused mental agony, much embarrassment before her family and guest as well as economic loss. In view of the above position, complainant issued a legal notice wherein the OPs were asked to provide a new LED of the same value alongwith Rs. 50,000/- for causing embarrassment, deficiency in service and adopting deceptive and unfair trade practice and Rs. 5,100/- towards cost of legal notice within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice but the OPs never responded to the said legal notice till date. Therefore complainant was constrained to file the present case before this Forum with the request to pay an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- in favour of the complainant by the OPs towards deficient services and damages to the reputation alongwith cost of the case.

Complainant has annexed a copy of retail invoice No. 11954 dated 11.09.2011 issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 33,000/- wherein one of the item is mentioned as Haier LED and another is Onida washing machine but the separate cost of each item has not been shown. However as per submission made by the complainant, the subject LED TV was worth Rs. 15,000/- for the record and complainant has filed a copy of Haier extended warranty certificate bearing no. 000695 dated 11^th July for a four year warranty given by OP2 as well as copy of legal notice with postal receipts.

2. Notice was issued upon OPs on 14.10.2014 for the appearance on 10.11.2014 but none of the OP appeared before this Forum despite service effected on 15.10.2014 and as such were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2014.
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein she reiterated the points mentioned in her complaint.
4. Written arguments were filed by the complainant wherein it was stated that since the OPs did not take any step for the solution of the grievances of the complainant despite comprehensive warranty of four years given to the complainant by the OPs, OPs were compelling her to pay for the repair of the subject LED and this is a case of deceptive and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part since the OPs sold the subject LED TV with a false assurance to the complainant and both being dealer and manufacturer were jointly liable for fooling the complainant and denying her the warranty and therefore the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by her in the prayer made before this Forum.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel of the complainant and have gone through the material evidence submitted by her in support of her contentions made in the complaint.

We are of the considered view that firstly the OP1 did not issue a proper and valid retail invoice mentioning the breakup of price of Haier LED TV and Onida washing machine separately. Secondly, clause 1 of terms and conditions of the Haier extended warranty certificate stipulated four years warranty (1 year comprehensive warranty + three years warranty on 81cm and above LCD panel only) which was an invalid / incorrect/ improper warranty card supplied by OP1 to the complainant and therefore unfair trade practice and unethical business conduct on the part of OP1 as the complainant had purchased the Haier LED for which a proper/correct/valid extended warranty certificate should have been issued and both OPs having business relationship of dealer and manufacturer are jointly liable for such wrongful acts. As such, the OPs are guilty of cheating the complainant with incorrect/invalid warranty card, which was not applicable to the LED TV purchased by the complainant. Further the OPs did not appear before this Forum to make any rebuttal of the claim / contentions of the complainant and as such the complainant has succeeded in proving the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, we direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as cost of LED to the complainant alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and issuance of defective retail invoice as well as invalid warranty certificate to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges payable by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which 9% p.a. interest shall be payable by the OPs to the complainant on total awarded amount (being Rs. 30,000/-) from the date of this order till the date of realization.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 25.04.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member