Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/31

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gill Mart - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Parminder Singh Toor, Adv

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                  Consumer Complaint No. :  31 of 07.05.2018

                                  Date of decision           :    27 .11.2018

 

Rajinder Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Sardara Singh, resident of Village Bhagowal, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar  

                                                                    ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Gill Mart, SCF No.15-16, Bhai Lalo Market, Ropar, District Ropar through its proprietor
2. Triple Chandigarh, SCO-530, 3^rd Floor, Sector 38, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory 
3. Videocon Industries Limited, 14 KM, Stone Paithan Road, Chitegaon, District Aurangabad 431105, Maharashtra through its authorized signatory/MD/Chairman.

                                                                             ....Opposite Parties

                                    Complaint under Section 12 of the                                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                         SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                         SH. AMRINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Parminder Singh Toor, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.Ps. No.1 to 3 exparte 

 

                                             ORDER

               SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.          Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties refund the amount of LED along with interest 18% per annum; to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages; to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

2.     Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 31.12.2014, the complainant had purchased a Videocon LED 40 Inch, from the O.P. No.1 of Rs.30,900/-. The O.P. No.1 given warranty period of said LED is 2 years. Moreover, the O.P. No.1 also issued separate warranty card to the complainant for the period of another two years. After few months of its purchase, it was creating problems like half screen is running but the remaining screen appeared black. After that, the complainant lodged a complaint in this regad but the O.P. did not lodged any complaint mean while the full screen of LED working smoothly. After complete of weeks, the LED again started some problems, moreover the speakers and back panel of LED totally struck off and LED got totally dead, then the complainant tried to lodge complaint in this respect, again OP failed to lodge the complaint of the complainant. It is further stated that after some time, the complainant tried to lodge complaint then O.P. lodged a complaint on 15.11.2017 only about screen issues not about speakers and back panel. After that the O.P. sent a technician man for the repair of the LED in respect about said complaint. When the complainant asked the technician of O.P. about his qualification but he did not give satisfactory answer. The O.P. recruited, untrained and eligible person as technician. On 29.11.2017, the O.P. delivered a LED to the complainant. When, the complainant opened the same then he found that the said LED which was delivered by the O.P. used one/second hand in condition. Thereafter, the complainant made a call at O.P. customer care number about said incident then they did not listen any request. The complainant made requests to the OP a number of times to replace the LED with new one but the O.P. totally refused to the complainant to replace the said TV with new one and use filthy language towards the complainant and also threatened him, they will not returned his LED as well as price of the said LED and said the complainant do whatever you want to do. Neither they did not repaired nor refunded the price of the LED. Hence, this complaint.    

  3.   On notice, O.P. No.3 appears through authorized representative and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that at the outset the O.P. No.3 herein takes the leave of this Hon’ble Forum to submit that the complaint is not maintainable as the fact of deficiency in service as has been put forth is alleged with malafide intention and without any cause; that the complainant is alleging false facts and trying to mislead this Hon’ble Forum; that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to extract addition money from the O.Ps. On merits, it is stated that every product comes with a product manual and states that in case of any defect or complaint in the product please contact the service centre of the company. However, in this case, the complainant conveniently ignored this and did not register any complaint with the company or our service centre. As per our records, the complainant registered a complaint vide complaint No.CHA2211170108. Our service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and suggested for replacement of product. The service engineer then forwarded the request for replacement of the product and the company provided replacement of the product on 19.12.2017. It is further stated that in case any product is replaced as part of the non repairable product, the defective product is returned to the company. But the complainant refused to return the defective product and kept both the product in their possession.    Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.     On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2018. After filing written reply, none has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.3 and it was also proceeded against exparte.   

5.     On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.     Complainant counsel Sh. Parminder Singh Toor argued that Rajinder Singh Complainant purchased one Videocon LED 40 Inch on 31.12.2014 from the OP No.1 against a sum of Rs.30,900/- with warranty of two years. The few months after the purchase of LED, it started creating trouble like half screen running and remaining screen appeared as Black. The complainant approached to the OP by lodging a complaint on 15.11.2017 and the technician repaired the LED. But due to non working properly, the OP on 29.11.2017 delivered the LED TV in packed condition, when opened then found old one. Due to non working of the LED as well after issuance of the legal notice dated 13.3.2018, the complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint deserves to be allowed with costs.  

8.       Earlier the OP No.3 was contesting the complaint and has filed written reply in which the OP No.3 has taken the plea that complaint is false and the complaint is not maintainable in the forum because there is no deficiency in service. On merits admitted the sale/purchase of the Videocon LED and in para No.5 of its reply has taken the specific plea that purchase of the LED pertaining to the year 2014, whereas on 19.12.2017, OP delivered new LED to the complainant and the complainant despite receipt of the new LED not returned the old defective piece. Rather delivered now both the LEDs are in possession of the complainant. The point of limitation also assailed. OPs No.1 to 3 not appeared on 12.11.2018 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.11.2018.

9.     So far the sale/purchase of the LED dated 31.12.2014 by the complainant from Ops is admitted. Complainant alleged the purchase, whereas in reply OP No.3 not denied. So the sale/purchase admitted, it is a consumer dispute. But at the same time, the forum is to appreciate, whether the complaint is within limitation or not. The purchase of the LED is pertaining to 31.12.2014 and as per enactment, even the consider warranty period of two years, the complaint is time barred. The period of limitation is to run from the date of purchase i.e. 31.12.2014. If the warranty period considered then it comes to an end 31.12.2016 and the complaint is dated 07.05.2018. So the point of limitation goes against the complainant.    

10.   Coming to the deficiency in service, complainant reported qua the purchase Videocon LED to the OP and OP send technician who recommended for the replacement and on 29.11.2017, OP delivered Led TV to the complainant which is admitted by the Rajinder Singh complainant. Complainant placed on file the purchased bill dated 31.12.2014 Ex.C1 and delivery challan of the second LED dated 19.12.2017 Ex.C2. In the lower part of Ex.C2 there is acknowledgment on behalf of complainant qua the receipt of LED from Mr. Sanjay Kumar employee of OP No.3. Complainant placed on file legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 and delivery challan Ex.C5. From the above referred documents, forum is unable to make up the mind qua the deficiency in service in favour of complainant against the Ops. During the course of arguments, complainant admitted the possession of old LED and the replaced LED of December 2017.

11.   In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stand dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

12.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

                      ANNOUNCED                                                  (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                      Dated.27.11.2018                                        PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                            (AMRINDER SINGH)

                                                                                MEMBER