BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.88 of 2017 Date of Instt.31.03.2017 Date of Decision: 20.04.2021

Daler Singh Rathaur aged about 40 years, son of Sh. Surjit Singh R/o 113-A, Maharaja Garden, Leather Complex, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Auto World, 8, Rajinder Nagar, Tehsil Road, Jalandhar Through its Prop/Authorized Person.

2. Blaupunkt India Pvt. Ltd., 47, Atlanta Society, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Through its Mg. Director.

..…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. OP No.1 exparte. Sh. B. S. Kalra, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2

Order

Kuljit Singh (President)

1. The present complainthasbeen filed by complainantagainst the OP on the averments thatthe complainant purchased a car stereo Series 530 Blaupunkt Player Touch BP 110350001301 vide cash memo No.1107 dated 23.04.2016 for Rs.23,000/- from the OP No.1 made by the OP No.2. That after installation of the above said stereo player the complainant has faced many errors/problems in the said player like internal micro phone is not working properly and system hanged on many occasion and show error message frequently. That the complainant at service station of the OPs about the above said problem and service station Electro Care 7/2, Old Jawahar Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar booked the said stereo vide dispatch note No.274 dated 20.12.2016 after fixing all the problems, the complainant received the player/stereo but again after some time the same problems occurred in the said stereo and again handed over the said stereo to the above said service station on 17.01.2017 vide dispatch Note 299. The complainant also sent many emails regarding the above said problems faced by him in the above said player/stereo but the OP never replied to the same. That the above said stereo is having manufacturer defect which is not curable by the OP. The product is also of not good quality and durable and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP for repairing the said stereo. That the OPs have supplied defective stereo to the complainant which shows unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 28.02.2017, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- or replace the said stereo with new one, alongwith Rs.50,000/- as amount of compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared and filed reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections thatthe complaint is not maintainable in the present form, being false, frivolous and without any merits and the same has been filed by the complainant without any sufficient cause or reasons and with the sole intention to unnecessarily harass and torture the answering OP under the garb of present false and baseless complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP in any manner whatsoever. That the complainant do not falls under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as such the present proceedings are liable to be dismissed with heavy compensatory costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/- because the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the instant proceedings. That the complainant be stopped from filing the present complaint against the answering OP by his own act, conduct, omission, commission, admission, laches etc. That the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present baseless complaint against the OP. That the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, as such, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as sought for, rather the complainant is liable to be prosecuted under the law. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing of the product is admitted and further submitted that In fact the system purchased by the complainant is of very good quality. Also it needs to be noted that the radio is also supplied with an external microphone in addition to an internal microphone as different cars have different distances. The product was hanging as the map software which is on an SD card was found corrupted due to misuse. The service centre flashed the software after which there was no hanging issue and further submitted that the complainant had not given an opportunity to the answering respondent to repair of the product. Moreover, the answering respondent is providing the warranty of the product if the product of the company has been installed by the representative of the company as the installation of the product is required due caution but in the present case the complainant has got installed the product from someone else who may had occurred error in installation. Despite the fact the answering respondent is always ready to repair the above said product. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to provehis case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunny Kumar as Ex.OP2/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand have also gone through the written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant as well ascase file very carefully.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant got installed DVD player/ stereo in his car vide bill No. 1107 dated 23.04.2016 Ex.C-4 for a sum of Rs.23,000/-.Opposite Parties also issued warranty card of 24 months from the date of its purchase. Complainant alleges that on 20.12.2016 said system not working properly. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 booked said stereo vide dispatch No.274 dated 20.12.2016. The OP-1 after solve the problem of stereo handover the stereo to complainant but again after some time the same problem occurred in said stereo. However after the gap of one month, the stereo started booked to OP-1 on 17.01.2017 vide dispatch No.299.

7. On the other hand, counsel for OP-2 has argued that In fact the system purchased by the complainant is of very good quality. Also it needs to be noted that the radio is also supplied with an external microphone in addition to an internal microphone as different cars have different distances. The product was hanging as the map software which is on an SD card was found corrupted due to misuse. The service centre flashed the software after which there was no hanging issue and further submitted that the complainant had not given an opportunity to the answering respondent to repair of the product. Moreover, the answering respondent is providing the warranty of the product if the product of the company has been installed by the representative of the company as the installation of the product is required due caution but in the present case the complainant has got installed the product from someone else who may had occurred error in installation. Despite the fact the answering respondent is always ready to repair the above said product

8. The complainant has not produce any expert evidence that qua the exact problem of the stereo player. But inspite of this, the Opposite Parties No.2 extended their full service to the complainant as a goodwill gesture. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got installed stereo player in dispute in his car against said bill having warranty of 24 months However, due to several requests made by the complainant, technicians were sent to the complainant’s house to check the product. The problem was with regard to some software file of the map card gone missing for which the complainant was advised to contact the service centre of Map My India. Another complaint was lodged by the complainant for GPRS system which was also regarding Map Card and the complainant was advised to visit Map My India Service centre. The warranty of Map Card was for 6 months which had already expired, so the complainant was to pay for the Map-card repair. However, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 stated at bar that they would get the Stereo player of the car of the complainant repaired and make it fully functional.

10. Resultantly, the complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to produce the stereo Player in dispute with OPs and the Opposite Parties are directed to get the Stereo Player of the complainant, repaired by making it fully functional without charging any amount from the complainant, within one month from the date the said stereo Player is produced before the Opposite Parties by the complainant.

11. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

12. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.

Announced in open Commission

20^th of April 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)