Delhi

East Delhi

CC/887/2014

RATIKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOICE ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESDSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

                                                                                                   COMPLAINT NO.    887/2014

                                                                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION. 20/09/2014

                                                                                                    DATE OF ORDER. 06/06/2016

RATIKA G. GHAGCHANDANI,

W/O GHANSHYAM J, GHAGCHANDANI

I-131-D, LALITA PARK, LAXMI NAGAR,

DELHI-110092.

                                                                                                                         Complainant        

Vs

 

1. CHOICE ELECTRONICS

H-15, MAIN VIKAS MARG,

LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI 110092.

 

2. PHILIPS INDIA LTD.

C-152, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI.

              Opponents

     

1172041.  

Sukhdev singh                    (President)

P.N. Tiwari                           (Member)

Harpreet kaur Charya      (Member)

 

Complainant’s Advocate:  In person

Opponent’s Advocate     : None

Order By: Shri  P.N. Tiwari (Member)

 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The brief facts are as, the complainant purchased Philips 32” LCD from M/S Choice Electronics/OP-1 on 21/09/2011 of Rs.20,500/-. The complainant stated that no guarantee/ warranty card was given though retail invoice mentioned two year extended warranty in addition of one year standard warranty. It is stated that under extended warranty there will be free replacement of parts as well as services for three years. The said LCD TV got some problem and the same was satisfactorily replaced with a New Mother Board/SSB by OP-2 (Kesar Electronics), Laxmi Nagar Delhi-92. Thereafter the same problem occurred and OP-2 duly denying services and finally refused to provide any service. The complainant stated that the OP adopted double standard in providing services under extended warranty period by which they have adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant further states that OP-2 has demanded the replacement of defective part of Rs.2,813/- without giving any assurance. This is further amounts to deficiency in service of OP-2 causing harassment in third year of warranty when OP 2 failed to give any satisfactory services. The complainant filed this complaint praying for providing services along with compensation of Rs.12,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.2,500/- and for harassment of Rs.5,000/-.

            On perusal of the complaint and evidences, the complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the Ops. As notices could not be served due to renovation work fresh notice was issued, later on, OP put their appearance and after receiving the copy of the complaint neither written statement nor evidence filed by the Ops. Thereafter complainant filed the evidence on affidavit as OP failed to file the version despite of giving ample opportunities, arguments were heard.

            We have perused all the evidence on record and evidence filed by the complainant on affidavit, which is on record.

            It is admitted fact that the said LCD TV was purchased on 21/09/2011 for Rs.20,500/- which shows one year normal warranty with two year extended warranty. It also shows that manufacturer is responsible for providing same services. Not authentic Job service card was available on record except many mails sent by complainant. There is also one page showing warranty definitions of OP-2 but it is difficult to believe that the same pertains to the said LCD model but OP has not submitted its version except one mail reply which shows SSB Card faulty under complaint No. PDEL 311402207 in Philips LCD Model No. 32 PFL 3305/V-7 bearing serial no. 110411019000903981 for this the amount was asked Rs.2,813/-. This fault was second time in the said product. The OP had changed the SSB card earlier during expansion of the warranty, hence, at this stage, it seems that OP has not kept the maintainability of service contract in third year of warranty period and the same exchanged SSB Card redeveloped problem.

Heard, OP not exchanged of SSB card or removed defect under extended warranty period, this clearly establishes the deficiency of OP. Hence, considering the evidence on record we direct the OP to replace the faulty SSB Card within 30 days from the receiving this order and give one year extended warranty from the date of handing over the said LCD TV in working condition to the complainant. If OP fails to exchange then OP will pay the cost of SSB Card/mother board of the same product along with 9% interest from date of filling this complainant till realization. OP will also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- which will include the cost of mental pain, harassment, in addition of Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)               

   MEMBER                                                                                                  MEMBER                  

 

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT