Delhi

North East

CC/52/2018

Sh. Satya Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepti Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 52/18

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Satya Pal Singh S/o Late Sh. Man Singh R/o- H.no- C-27, GTB, Hospital Campus Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	Deepti Electronics H-143A, Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095   Malhotra Elect. Pvt Ltd No. 11-C, Udyog Nagar Noida, UP-201306	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                 DATE OF DECISION    :

22.03.2018 10.05.2019 10.05.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Shown of unnecessary details, the grievance of the complainant as made out in the present complaint is that he had purchased a Zebronics LED TV Model no. 40 M1 manufactured by OP2 from OP1 seller on 25.11.2015 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- inclusive of VAT vide Invoice no. 1526 on assurance and recommendation of OP1 of it being of excellent quality and durability and of Indian make. The said LED had warranty of three years. The said LED continued to function uninterruptedly till the end of 2017 i.e. for two years. However, in the beginning of 2018, it started giving problems of blackening of screen for which the complainant lodged written complaints to OPs on 12.01.2018 requesting them to rectify defect therein and a technician was sent to the premises of complainant who opened the machine of the LED and on the inside of its plate was written MADE IN CHINA. The complainant felt cheated by such acts of the OPs who induced him to buy a Chinese product by misrepresenting the same as Indian and then refusing to get it repaired. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service and prayed for issuance of direction against the OPs to refund the cost of the LED i.e. Rs. 25,000/- alongwith compensation of  Rs. 25,000/- towards mental, physical and financial harassment.
2. The complainant has attached copy of retail invoice of LED TV purchased from OP1, copy of warranty policy booklet of the LED, copy of bar code details of the LED clicked from the carton of the LED, copy of the photo clicked of the inside panel of the LED showing its make MADE IN CHINA and copy of letter dated 12.01.2018 to OPs alongwith postal receipts
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 04.04.2018 and was served on them on 19.04.2018 & 18.04.2018 respectively. However, none appeared on behalf of the OPs and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.08.2018.
4. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 14.09.2018 & 21.01.2019 respectively in reassertion of his grievance against the OPs and argued during the course of arguments that the said TV showed no power light despite being connected to power supply and OPs were very rude with the complainant and failed to repair the LED despite it being under warranty and in addition to the relief claimed in the complaint, prayed for 18% interest p.a. on the cost of TV and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
5.  We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have given our anxious consideration to the documentary evidence placed on record before us.

The factum of purchase of the subject LED in question from OPs and it being covered under warranty while it went out of order after two years of usage is admitted by the complainant himself. OPs did not appear to rebut the allegation of manufacturing defect raised in the LED in question or of its makes whether Indian or Chinese by the complainant. As regards fastening of liability of the seller in such cases, the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Prabhat Kumar Sinha Vs Nitish Kumar III (2016) CPJ 239 (NC) had held that the petitioner being the seller of a defective computer under warranty, in our considered view, was under obligation either to rectify the defects or to replace the computer or refund the consideration amount received. So far as the liability of the manufacturing company is concerned, it is the issue between the manufacturing company and the dealer for which the respondent cannot be made to suffer. The Hon’ble National Commission in Kirloskar Oil Engineers Ltd Vs M. Lokesh 2003 (1) CPR 192 (NC) upheld the concurrent findings of Hon’ble State Commission and District Forum holding manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service in failure to rectify the defects in the generators manufactured by OP.

After due appreciation of the facts of the case we are of the considered view that both the OPs are guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in having sold a China made TV to the complainant by passing it off as having been manufactured in Indians and then later on declining to repair the same despite it being within warranty and failed to provide after sale service or attended to repair calls of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Rellech Bio Chemical System Vs Amulya Kumar Behara (Dr.) (2007) IV CPJ 388 (NC) had in a similar case upheld the order of the lower Fora holding the OPs guilty of deficiency of service in having failed to render service within warranty period. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of R.Kesava Kumar Vs Sonovision and Ors I (2016) CPJ 675 (NC) had upheld the order passed by the District Forum, not interfered by Hon’ble State Commission Lucknow in case of manufacturing defects in case of fridge in which the District Forum had directed OP to refund the cost of fridge alongwith compensation as reasonable and justified.

From the admission of the complainant, he had used the subject LED for two years one month uninterruptedly and defect free within warranty period from November 2015 to December 2017. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Godrej Photo-ME Ltd Vs Jaya P. Appachu in FA No. 723/2003 decided on 24.05.2004 held that the undisputed fact that the machine was with the complainant in working order till few weeks before the end of warranty period and that the complainant had used the machine for almost six months, he could not demand a full refund. The Hon’ble National Commission therefore held that the order passed by State Commission directing full refund was not right and reduced the quantum to be paid by OP to less than half. Therefore relying on the observation and view of the Hon’ble National Commission in such a case where the complainant using defective product for a while cannot claim full refund, we are not inclined to grant full refund of the cost of LED and direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant subject to complainant handing over the defective LED to the dealer i.e. OP1 as per settled law. We further direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony. No other relief can be granted as subsequently added / prayed for by the complainant in evidence by way of affidavit as the same is perverse to legal proceedings without proper amendment of pleadings under proper provision of law and therefore is disallowed. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  10.05.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member