Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/713/2014

Rajiv Kumar Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electronic Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Jaimini Tiwari

06 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/713/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	31/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	06/05/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajiv Kumar Bhandari s/o Sh. F.C. Bhandari, R/o H.No.1102, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Electronic Enterprises, SCO 2465-66, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Prop./ Partner.

 

2.   NU Tech Enterprises, SCO 495-96, FF, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Prop./ Partner.

 

3.   Lloyd Electronic & Engineering Ltd., Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019, through its Head.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

Argued By:    Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

Sh. Arun Bansal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Lloyd 32” LED from Opposite Party No.1, vide invoice dated 01.11.2013 (Annex.C-1) for Rs.19,500/-, carrying one year warranty (Annex.C-2), as a Diwali Gift for his married sister. It has been averred that in the month of February, the problem started in LED as it turned off automatically. Immediately Opposite Party No.1 was contacted, who directed the Complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant made a number of Complaints at Customer Care Centre and personal visits to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and had even telephonic conversation with the Area Head and Service Head regarding the problem, but no satisfactory reply was ever received. Finally, the Service Engineer tried to set right the defect, but again the problem persisted, due to which the Opposite Party No.1 on the asking of Opposite Party No.3 replaced the defective LED with a new one on 9.6.2014. However, to the utter shock of the Complainant, the replaced LED had the same defect and again series of Complaints started (Details of Complaints Annexure C-4). It has been further alleged that the Opposite Parties deliberately delayed the matter so that the warranty period gets over. Since the Opposite Parties have failed to make the LED in question defect free inspite of the repeated repairs and replacement also, the Complainant has filed the present Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1, initially, appeared through its Agent Sh. Ajit Pal Singh, while Sh. Pawan Kumar, Prop. has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 on 16.12.2014, but subsequently as none appeared on their behalf, hence vide order dated 12.01.2015, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that on finding some defect in the LED in question, the same was replaced with a new unit (). It has been asserted that the Complaints were duly attended to and necessary action was taken immediately to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The LED unit has no manufacturing defect and the same is working properly. The Complainant has malafide intentions to get the refund/ unit replaced again by making the false Complaints. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the contesting parties. 

 

7.     A perusal of the file reveals that the Complainant purchased one Lloyd 32” LED from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure C-1) for Rs.19,500/- with one year warranty. As per the case of the Complainant, just after usage of 04 months, the aforesaid LED started switching off automatically. Even after repairs done, that, too after filing number of Complaints, the problem persisted and finally, the defective LED was replaced with a new one on 09.06.2014 by Opposite Party No.3.

 

8.     The main grouse of the Complainant is that even the replaced LED had the same defect and again various Complaints were filed with Opposite Parties as mentioned over Annexure C-4. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties delayed the matter of repair/ replacement deliberately, so that the warranty period gets over, therefore, the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service.

 

9.     The stand taken by Opposite Party No.3 (Manufacturer) is that the defective LED has already been replaced with a new unit on 17.7.2014 vide Annexure R-1. Further, the required repairs were done on 14.10.2014 vide Annexure R-2. Furthermore, the Complaint of the Complainant was attended properly and necessary action was taken on 25.10.2014 vide Annexure R-3. It has been asserted by Opposite Party No.3 that as the product has no manufacturing defect and working well, therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

10.     It is evident that after repeated reminders and various requests only the defective LED was replaced. But similar kind of problem was again faced by the Complainant while using the brand new replaced LED. Annexure R-2 and R-3 the job-sheets make it clear that the product in question is of poor quality as major repairs were carried on by the Opposite Parties by replacing the panel and PCB too within 03 months of its usage. As per Annexure R-3 repair was again done on 25.10.2014 within 10 days of previous major repair which was done vide Annexure R-2. Therefore, frequently occurring defects substantiate the fact of poor quality of the product.

 

11.     Pertinently Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 instead of appearing during the proceedings of the case to corroborate the defence taken by the Opposite Party No.3 preferred to proceed against ex-parte. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties for selling a poor quality product to the Complainant and further non-providing the appropriate services clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.19,500/- being the invoice price of the Lloyd 32” LED and take back the defective LED, from the complainant, at their expenses;

 

 

[b]  To pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. 

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

 

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  

 

14.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

06^th May, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER