Haryana

Ambala

CC/70/2017

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Electrical & Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                         Complaint case no.        : 70 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 03.03.2017

                                                          Date of decision    : 22.03.2018

 

 

Daljit Singh aged about 29 year son of Late Shri Naib Singh, resident of village Dangdehri, PO Kakru, Teshil & District, Ambala-134003 Haryana.

……. Complainant.

 

1.  Arvind Electricals & Electronic, Prem Nagarm Ambala City, Haryana.

2.  Telecare Customer Care Centre, Old Civil Hospital Road, Near Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City-134003, Haryana.

3.  Videocon Industries Limited, Regd. Office 14 KM Stone, Aurangabad Paithan Road, Village Chitegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad-431105 Maharashtra and its Branch Office SCO-137, IInd Floor, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001, Haryana.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gutpa, Member.                  

         

 

Present:        Complainant in person.

                    Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 3.

OP No.1 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 20.04.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a LED of Videocon, Model No.VKC40FH-ZMA1, Name of Commodity 102 cm LED TV on dated 03.10.2014 from OP No.1 of Rs. 28500/- with a warranty offer of One +two years extended warranty. The complainant has faced a problem of picture quality and blackness in screen on dated 25.01.2017. He has registered a complaint on 25.01.2017 bearing reference no. KAR2701170024, received on dated 27.01.2017 about the same through the OP No.1. The service centre employee of OP No.2 has reached to the complainant on 28.1.2017 for repair the LED and checked the LED. The service centre employee has asked that there is panel problem in this led and to pay Rs.1100/- as service charges. Same has paid to the service centre employee and employee assured the complainant that they will repair it after 8-10 days. After one week the OP No.2 reached to complainant and again checked the LED and told to complainant that we have sent a report to our company that the LED is not repairable and we have to replace it by new one with equivalent specification within 10-15 days and advice to complainant to take further follow up with OP No.3. On 25.03.2017 the OP No.3 has called the complainant that receive his LED from Service Centre, Ambala City and return the old LED with all accessories and the complainant has reached service centre Ambala City with old LED and all accessories. When the complainant received the LED and the service centre employee have installed it at the complainant’s home. When the complainant has checked the specification on LED box the specification and the picture quality is low as compare to the old LED. The complainant called the OP No.3 about the same problem and said that the specification is not same and LED size is also small of this replaced LED. The OP No.3 said that we provide only this model if the complainant want the specification as per his old LED the complainant has to pay ten to eleven thousand. The complainant has sent so many emails to the OP No.3 but they have only gave fake assurance. Because of the attitude of OPs, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Registered notice issued to Op No. 1 but none has turned up on his behalf and OP No. 1 was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 20.04.2017. Upon notice, OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant has been provided with a brand new defect free LED of same specifications but the complainant is adamat and wants to grab money from the Ops. The old LED of the complainant was bearing model number LEDTVVKC40FH-ZMA1 whereas the complainant had been provided replacement with a new LED bearing model number LEDTVVMV40HH21FKM. The size of the said LED given in replacement is equal to the size of the old LED i.e.40”. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.2 &3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-13 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The complainant has come with the plea that during extended warranty period the product LED in question went out of order therefore it was brought to service centre/OP No.2 but it instead of repairing the same delivered the another LED having lesser specifications.

On the other hand OP Nos. 2 & 3/service centre and manufacturer have pleaded that the complainant under the garb of this complaint wants to grab money from them despite the fact that the LED which was  given to him after needful was the same and there was no lesser specifications.

6.                Undisputedly the complainant had purchased LED of 102 cm from OP No.1 vide Annexure C-1 and initially the same was having one  year warranty which was extended for further two years as is evident through Annexure C-1. As per Annexure C-1 the complainant had purchased Videocon LED Model LEDTVVKC40FM Chassis No. SR-8516 and the photograph of the box of the product in question has been placed on file as Annexure C-11 mentioning LED TV 102 cm but the service centre has provided the LED TV 98 cm and photograph of the box has been placed on the case file as  Annexure C-10. The plea taken by the OP Nos. 2 & 3 is contradictory and not believable as in their reply they have submitted that the LED which was given to the complainant after needful was same but Annexure C-10 i.e. box clearly shows that LED TV 98 cm, therefore, it is clear that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 did not provide after sale service to the complainant as per his satisfaction rather tried to dispose of the matter in this way or that way without taking care the interest of the consumer/ complainant. It is clear that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 are  indulged in unfair trade practice by providing the LED of lesser specifications which  invites Section 2(1) (d) and Section 2(1) (r ) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.                Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that present complaint deserves acceptance only against OP Nos. 2 & 3. The complaint stands dismissed against OP No.1. Accordingly, we hereby allow the present complaint with cost which is assessed at Rs.3000/- to be paid by OP Nos. 2 & 3. The actual rate of LED 102 cm was Rs. 36,990/- (Annexure C-4) but after discount it was having value of Rs.28500/- whereas the actual price of the LED 98cm was Rs. 30,990/-(Annexure C-7). The complainant had purchased the 102cm LED for Rs. 28,500/- after taking discount around 23%. Therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the OP Nos. 2 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 7,128/- being 23% of the actual cost of LED 98 cm. Accordingly, the OP Nos. 2 & 3 (being service centre and manufacturer) are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund the difference value i.e. 23% which comes to Rs. 7,128/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 22.03.2018

 

                            

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N. ARORA)

 Member                                  Member                       President