Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 471.
Instituted on : 15.10.2015.
Decided on : 13.05.2016.
Parveen Solanki s/o Sh. G.L.Solanki R/o Old ITI Chinyot Colony, Opp. Pani Ki Pyau, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Green Dust No.9/24, Veena Enclave, Nangloi Jat, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 through its proprietor.
- Green Dust, Ganpati-Rohtak, SCF-9 Appu Ghar Shopping complex Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- The Managing Director, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, Registered office Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur, Kasna, Greater Noida(U.P).
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh.Shankar Gupta A.R. for opposite party No.2.
Smt. Savita Saini Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a LED 32 Inch TV of LG Company for a sum of Rs.19600/- vide Invoice No.2014-15/42 dated 10.12.2014 from the opposite party no.2 with one year guarantee. It is averred that since the date of purchase upto till date, it has been repaired four times as the same is having sound and display problem. It is averred that every time the complainant contacted with the service centre, but the problem could not be resolved. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of LED TV i.e. Rs.19600/- or to supply a new LED TV alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties through registered post but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.11.2015 of this Forum. Opposite parties no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is only a re-seller (franchise)/ shopkeeper who used to sell the products of the opposite party no.1 & 3. It is averred that in case of any defect in the LED/product the customer has to contact with the supplier and manufacturer for getting repair his product. The answering opposite party has no role to play. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party does not provide the facility of service to the opposite party no.1 i.e. Green Dust and opposite party no.1 provide service to its customers by itself directly. It is averred that no complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant with the answering opposite party. It is averred that answering opposite party has nothing to do with the present complaint and has been arrayed as opposite party just to harass it. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of this case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1and has closed her evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 made a statement on dated 04.05.2016 that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 be read in evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3 and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per Retail Invoice Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased an LED TV of LG Company for a sum of Rs.19600/- on dated 10.12.2014 from the opposite party no.2. It is also not disputed that the defects in the TV appeared during the warranty period. As per copy of email letter Ex.C2 complainant requested the opposite party at their email address to repair the alleged LED or to replace the same as it has been repaired four times being the problems of sound and display and also sent legal notice through registered post Ex.C3 as well as through email Ex.C6 dated 18.09.2015 but the same were not replied by the opposite parties. It is also not disputed that the opposite party no.1 is supplier and opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of the product. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has given a statement on dated 04.05.2016 that in case of any manufacturing defect in the product, the liability is of opposite party no.1 & 3 and opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer. It is also observed that opposite party no.1 has not appeared before this Forum to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and was proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite party no.1 has nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding defects in the alleged product stands proved.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite party no.3 being the manufacturer of the product/LED TV is liable to refund the price of product to the complainant. As such it is directed that opposite party no.3 shall refund the price of LED TV Rs.19600/-(Rupees nineteen thousand six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.10.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the disputed LED TV to the opposite parties. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
