Order by:

Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member

          Complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that complainant had purchased Haier LED TV LE50K6600HQ DHIVL2D440367 35035 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- vide invoice no.42558 dated 27.04.2021. The said LED was not working properly since the date of purchase. There may be some manufacturing defect in the said LED. The complainant had registered his complaint with regard to the defect in the LED to the customer care of Opposite Party No.2, which was got registered vide no.PB20220418000095. The text message was sent to the complainant on his mobile phone. But thereafter neither till date no Engineer/Service provider Opposite Parties visited the house of complainant nor the said LED was got replaced by the Opposite Parties. The complainant approached Opposite Parties and requested Opposite Parties to replace the said LED, but with no effect. The Opposite Parties were asked many times through the above mentioned correspondences to replace the LED, but the Opposite Parties flatly refused to do so. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to replace Haier LED TV LE50K6600HQ DHIVL2D3440367 35035 or to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest thereon.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of damages, mental tension, harassment and deficiency in service.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainants in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Upon service of notice, Sh.Naresh Kumar, Partner of Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable under the law because the complainant has not come in the Commission with clean hands and he has concealed some material facts from the Commission. The real facts are that when complainant purchased the LED Haier TV LE 50K6600HQ DHIVL2D440367 35035 on that time it was disclosed to him that if any problem arise, then you can complaint the service centre on no.18002009999 which is printed on the bill, it is also printed on the bill that once sold not refundable. As the Opposite Party no.1 is shopkeeper and he is selling the electronic articles of Haier and other companies for about last so many years. Opposite Party No.1 having good reputation in the market, if any customer purchased the electronic articles then authorized person of company visit the house of the customer, installed the articles and gave the instructions how to operate the same. So in this case when complainant purchased the LED, Company’s authorized person visit his house after installing the same he gave the proper instructions when customer understand the same then he returned back. Whenever any complaint made by complainant the same was forwarded to the company office. So, in these circumstances it is obviously clear that there is no deficiency in service of answering Opposite Party. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass, blackmail and lower the reputation of the shop as the Amar Joti shop is having a good reputation and name in the market. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against answering Opposite Party. On merits, remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Sh.Aditya Rajput, Area service Incharge has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is an abuse of the process of court and law in as much as it does not disclose any cause of action which warrants any adjudication by this Commission against the Opposite Party. The complainant has no surviving grievance against the Opposite Party. Further alleges that the complainant has not disclosed all the relevant facts which are necessary for adjudication against the answering Opposite Party. Complainant has tried to mislead this Commission, by not disclosing all the necessary facts and has not approached this Commission with clean hands; therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Further alleges that the complainant had purchased the said product from the one of the distributor of the Opposite Party No. 2 Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. The answering Opposite Party had provided efficient 'after sale service' for all its products including the said product and whenever the complainant reported any difficulty in the functioning of the said product, it was immediately attended to by the service technicians. The complainant has lodged his first complaint with the answering Opposite Party vide complaint no.PB20210427106770 vide which the installation request was made and soon after receiving the complaint the answering Opposite Party has deployed one service technician and the said complainant was dully attended by the service technician vide which the installation was done and a demo was given to the complainant and at that time the set/product was working completely fine. The complainant has lodged his second complaint vide complaint no. HI20220106001018 with regard to the Power supply to the said product which was duly assigned to service technician, who visited the complainant and examine the said product of the complainant and after thoroughly examination he arrived at the conclusion that power supply to the said product got burnt due to voltage fluctuations at the complainant premises and that fact has been told to the complainant. The service technician has changed the power supply and set was started working fine. The complainant has lodged his third complaint vide complaint no.PB20220202000062 vide which non- working of the product has reported, which was duly assigned to service technician. The service technician visited the complainant and examine the said product of the complainant and after thoroughly examining an item, the service technician has found out that again power supply interrupted due to high voltage (280V), thereafter the service technician again changed the power supply and the said product started working fine. The service technician again apprised the complainant about the voltage fluctuations and showed to the complainant the same as that time the voltage was as high as 280 V and that is not conducive for any appliances. The complainant has lodged his fourth complaint no.PB20220226000106 vide which again non-working of the said product was reported, which was duly assigned to service technician. The service technician visited the complainant and thoroughly inspected the said product again the power supply issue was there. The main board and power supply got burnt due to high voltage issue and even the set top box of the dish also got burnt. The service technician again changed the main board and power supply and after that set was working fine. At this time the service technician has apprised again the complainant that there was a voltage issue at his place and he must take care of it as he just cannot replace the board for end number of times despite the fact that the issue was not related to the said product and there is no issue with the said product and this fact has been suppressed by the complainant from this Commission for the reason best known to him. The complainant has lodged his fifth complaint no.PB20220418000095 vide which again the same power supply issue was report for the fourth consecutive time as the service technician apprised the complainant on the last occasion he has given the estimate to the complainant about the replacement of the power board etc., but the complainant has refused to pay a single penny despite the fact that every time the power supply interrupted or the power board got burnt due to high voltage issue at his premises and he is failed to get rid of that. Further alleges that the said product was working fine till this voltage issue arose and every now and then he is getting apprised by the service technician about this issue which he overlooked. All the complaints were duly attended by the service technician. Further alleges that the opposite party is ready to resolve the issue and to repair the said product subject to the repairing cost to be bear by the complainant as the opposite party cannot bear the expenses despite the fact that the sole reason of voltage fluctuations at the complainant premises that has been duly intimated to the complainant but he refused to pay anything. The said product is technically working fine and the complainant is taking the services of the said product. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.

5.       Opposite Party no.1 has not tender any documents in evidence. However, Sh.Aditya Rajput, Area Service Incharge of Opposite Party No.2 has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP2/A.

6.       During the course of arguments, complainant as well as opposite parties have mainly reiterated the same facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply. The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased Haier LED TV LE50K6600HQ DHIVL2D440367 35035 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- vide invoice no.42558 dated 27.04.2021. The said LED was not working properly since the date of purchase. There may be some manufacturing defect in the said LED. The complainant had registered his complaint with regard to the defect in the LED to the customer care of Opposite Party No.2. But neither till date no Engineer/Service provider Opposite Parties visited the house of complainant nor the said LED was got replaced by the Opposite Parties. The complainant approached Opposite Parties and requested Opposite Parties to replace the said LED, but with no effect.

7.       On this, version of the Opposite party no.1 is that as the Opposite Party no.1 is shopkeeper and he is selling the electronic articles of Haier and other companies for about last so many years, whenever any complaint made by complainant the same was forwarded to the company office. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has taken the plea that whenever the complainant reported any difficulty in the functioning of the said product, it was immediately attended to by the service technicians. Firstly, the complainant has lodged his complaint vide complaint no. HI20220106001018. On receiving the complaint of the complainant service technician visited the complainant and after thoroughly examination he arrived at the conclusion that power supply to the said product got burnt due to voltage fluctuations. The complainant has lodged another complaint vide complaint no.PB20220202000062. On examination the service technician has found out that again power supply interrupted due to high voltage (280V), thereafter, the complainant has lodged his complaint no.PB20220226000106 and complaint no.PB20220418000095 vide which again the same power supply issue was report for the fourth consecutive time. Every time the power supply interrupted or the power board got burnt due to high voltage issue at his premises and he is failed to get rid of that. All the complaints were duly attended by the service technician. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contentions of ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, because if there is voltage fluctuation issue then the other electronic appliances should be burnt on every fluctuation not only LED. Moreover if the plea of the Opposite Party No.2 is presumed to be correct that there is any voltage fluctuation issue in the house of the complainant, then why the complainant did not get it rectified and wait for its electronic appliances burnt. If there is any issue regarding voltage fluctuation in someone’s house, he immediately got repaired the same and not wait for its electronic appliances to get burn.  Moreover, the Opposite Party No.2 has not placed on record any report of expert regarding voltage fluctuation issue to prove this fact, which falsify the stand of Opposite Party No.2. Furthermore, if there was no defect in the LED in question, what was the need for the complainant to file the present complaint by spending huge money and by hiring an Advocate.

8.     Complainant has also argued that the LED was not working properly immediately after its purchase within warranty period and hence  the LED in question  is having manufacturing defect and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that

“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.” 

9.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,  we partly allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct all the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to refund the price of the LED in question i.e. 40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousands only) to the complainant, subject to return of old LED by the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.