Gurnam Singh son of Sunder Singh, resident of Village Chak Dhariwal, P.O. Sarna, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur, has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties stating therein that on 23.11.2017, he had purchased one LED TV 32 inch from opposite party no.1, i.e. Ashok Time Centre near Shakuntla Palace, State Bank Of India Sarna, Tehsil & Distt. Pathankot, vide receipt No.33 dated 23.11.2017 Annexure-2 on installments. He has alleged that he had paid four installments of Rs.6800/- in advance and remaining amount was got financed on 0% interest with Bajaj Company on the asking of opposite party No.1 but no bill/receipt was issued to him by opposite party no.1 at that time. He has further alleged that he had paid Rs.20,000/- in cash and in installments as per Annexure-3 and it was verbally told by opposite party no.1 that T.V. in question has 3 years warranty but no warranty card was issued by opposite party no.1 at that time. On the asking for warranty card and bill by him, opposite party no.1 verbally stated that as and when installments are completed, bill shall be issued to him and in the period of 3 years when the TV in question need to be repaired the same will be done by giving the warranty card to the complainant. Complainant has also alleged that opposite party no.1 i.e. Ashok Time Centre telephonically asked him to get the TV in question insured for free repair in future. Complainant has alleged that on 18.06.2019 smoke occurred in the TV and he approached the opposite party no.1 to get the TV repaired but opposite party no.1 asked to contact the mechanic of opposite party no.2 i.e. Onida Company on phone and stated that he has no role in it. Complainant has averred that he called on mobile No.7837262161 given by opposite party no.1 but he did not attend his phone. On the next day complainant again approached the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 asked the mechanic of opposite party no.2 i.e. Onida Company on phone for repair of the T.V. and also told the complainant for getting the copy of bill from opposite party no.3 i.e. Bajaj Finance for showing the same to the mechanic. Complainant had alleged that mechanic of opposite party no.2 visited his house for checking the T.V. in question and told that a part of the TV was defective and he demanded Rs.6500/- as warranty period of one year had elapsed. Complainant has further averred that when he asked for warranty card from opposite party no.1 he ordered him to get the same from Ajay T.V. Centre Gurdaspur and after that he got the same from Ajay T.V. Centre Gurdaspur which is Annexure-4. Complainant has also pleaded that mechanic of opposite party no.2 stated that as per the warranty card,  defective part was  under one year warranty which had  elapsed and asked the complainant to get the TV repaired by paying a sum of Rs.6500/-. Complainant has further submitted that he again approached the opposite party no.1 but opposite party no.1 asked  the complainant to contact with opposite party no.3 to get the TV repaired and when he approached the opposite party no.3 through contact no.18602583030 they asked that repair was to be done by opposite party no.2. Thus, the opposite parties failed to repair the T.V. in question and also failed to return the defective part of the T.V. to the complainant. Complainant lastly prayed for replacing the defective part with new one from the opposite parties, hence this complaint.

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complainant has no locus-standi to file present complaint and the same has been filed by the complainant only to harass the opposite party no.2. Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Facts mentioned in the complaint are totally false and opposite party no.2 is not entitle to give any compensation to the complainant as alleged. Complainant has not arrayed the required and necessary parties in the complaint and hence for non-joinder of necessary parties. Complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the warranty offered. On merits, it was stated that opposite party no.2 has no concern with opposite party no.1 from whom T.V. was purchased. Opposite party no.2 did not agree to repair the alleged T.V. as complainant was not having receipt/bill or warranty card of the T.V. in question. It was further stated that opposite party no.2 as appointed independent sales provided i.e. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and complainant never approached to the said service provided for the repair of his T.V. and complainant has put forth false and concocted story in to order to lay false claim against opposite parties and lastly prayed that complaint of the complainant is without any merit and same may kindly be dismissed with costs.     

3.       Opposite parties no.1 and 3 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.10.2019.

4.       Ccomplainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit and documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-4.

5.       Counsel for the opposite party no.2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Singh ASM with copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/3.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by the complainant but not filed by the opposite party no.2.

8.       Annexure-2 is the photocopy of the bill dated 23.11.2017, whereby the complainant purchased one LED vide Invoice No.33 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- from opposite party no.1. Annexure-3 is the copy of the warranty card whereby the LED in question was under 1 year warranty (Asset Care 1 year membership). Annexure-4 is the copy of the extended warranty card but the same does not bear the name of the complainant, product details i.e. serial number, invoice and cash memo number, dealer’s signature and stamp and the amount paid for extended warranty.

9.      Whereas Sh.Bhupinder Singh ASM, Customer Response Cell, NIRC Electronics i.e. opposite party no.2 has submitted in his duly sworn affidavit i.e. Ex.OP-2/1 that the complainant did not have the  warranty card.

10.     The case of the complainant is that he purchased one LED on 23.11.2017. It is alleged that on 18 June 2019 smoke occurred in the said LED and the complainant approached the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect. Though the complainant has alleged that smoke occurred in the LED and he lodged a complaint with the opposite parties, but he has not placed on record any job sheet to show the same. Moreover, as per Annexure-3 placed on record by the complainant, the LED in question was under one year warranty as alleged by the complainant.  Annexure-4, i.e. the extended warranty card which has been placed on record is just blank and does not depict customer name, product serial number, invoice, dealer signature and stamp and the amount paid etc. As such, this document is not at all authentic.

11.      As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, it is observed that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit as the problem occurred in the LED in question beyond the warranty period and as such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges.

File be consigned to records.

                                      (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                                             President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                        (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)

September 21, 2021.                                                              Member               

*MK*