Order-18.

Date-04/03/2016.

Complainant Debasis Das by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one LCD TV bearing model No. L32C630 from the op no.3 i.e. Great Eastern Trading Co. on 16.02.2013 on payment of cash amount of Rs. 15,000/- and op no.3 issued one purchase invoice acknowledging the receipt of the said sum.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are the manufacturing company of the LCD TV and soon after purchase in voice dated 16.02.2013, the same TV started malfunctioning and caused several problems.  So, complainant lodged a complaint over telephone to the op no.2 being the Branch Office of the said LCD TV company at Kolkata and op no.2 intimated regarding the said fact and assured the complainant to replace the said defective LCD TV set as early as possible.

          But in respect of the said letter dated 09.10.2013 op no.2 issued a letter to the complainant intimating that the said LCD TV bearing model No. L32C630 and Sl. No. DCIC10M0405DZC540078 is not available with them and offered the complainant to replace the same by the different LCD TV bearing Model No. LE32B50and op no.2 in the said letter demanded for another Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant by issuing a draft in favour of Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd.

          In respect of the said letter dated 09.10.2013 complainant issued one letter dated 29.11.2013 to the op no.2 denying for the payment of another Rs. 5,000/- as the op no.2 assured the complainant to replace the defective TV set and registered a complaint vide No. KOL1306260110 dated 26.06.2013 i.e just after the lapse of 4 months only from the date of purchase.

          After much persuasion between the complainant and the ops, op decided to refund of Rs. 15,000/- being the purchase value of the LCD TV set and op no.2 issued a letter dated 02.07.2014 stating for the refund of Rs. 15,000/- and wanted to draw the faith of the complainant sent a Xerox copy of a cheque bearing No. 141926 dated 15.05.2014 of the said amount and asked for convenient date and time of the complainant for sending their representative to handover the cheque and collect the defective LCD TV set.

          Though the op no.2 told for refund of the consideration money of the defective LCD TV set and sent the xerox copy of the cheque.

          But most surreptiously they never handed over the original cheque of the said amount and did not contact with complainant and complainant finding no other alternative issued a letter on 10.07.2015 to all the ops requesting either to replace the said LCD TV set or to refund the purchase money.  Though complainant was a bona fide purchaser and ops are the manufacturer and seller of this product and they sold the defective manufacturing LCD TV set.  So, it is the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the ops and since the ops admitted the defect of the TV set, they agreed to refund the consideration money and it was the duty of the ops to refund the value of the TV set but that was not happened.  So, it is no doubt an unfair trade practice for which this complaint was filed praying for redressal and compensation.

          On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that complainant no doubt purchased the said LCD TV bearing model No. L32C630 and Sl. No. DCIC10M0405DZC540078 by cash payment of Rs. 15,000/- to Great Eastern Trading Co.  No doubt complainant after four months from the date of purchase registered his first complaint bearing No. KOL13062601100 dated 26.06.2013 regarding unsatisfactory performance of the said LCD TV set’s panel.  Complainant was attended and it was observed by the technician that the panel had colour patch on lower portion of the LCD’s screen/panel.

          But as because in the op’s custody there was no such stock of such LCD panel as they inclined to give genuine services to the complainant.  So op offered for replacement of the existing LCD unit with higher model or to take the refund of the amount of consideration paid by the complainant.  But best reason is known to the complainant, complainant disapproved both the offers and asked the ops to replace the unit with another unit of the same model.  However, at that time op was constrained not to abide the demand of the complainant and so op requested the complainant to take refund of the whole consideration amount.  But complainant did not receive the cheque and thereafter filed this complaint before this Forum and denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of this case by asking the complainant to take refund of the amountof the defective TV set and op is always ready to issue a new for the said defective TV set.

Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and written version we are confirmed that admitted position is that complainant purchased the said LCD TV set on payment of Rs. 15,000/- and op also admitted that there was defect which could not be cured and same model of LCD TV set was not available for which op intended to replace the same by a new one higher quality model.

          But it is proved that op offered a proposal to the complainant either to take another high class model on payment of further Rs. 5,000/- or to take refund of the entire purchased amount of Rs. 15,000/-.  But complainant did not accept both the proposals, which is proved from the fact that complainant himself admitted that he received such letter from ops dated 02.07.2014 and from that letter it is clear that ops asked him to receive the cheque of Rs. 15,000/- against that LCD TV set by ops vide his letter dated 10.07.2015 but complainant informed the op in writing that he is not interested to take the proposal amount of Rs. 15,000/- the purchased money of the said TV though ops wanted to replace the same by a high quality model of LCD TV and for that purpose further amount of Rs. 5,000/- should be paid because warranty period of LCD TV set still exists and complainant also stated that op has no right to demand extra amount for the defective LCD TV set as replacement charges.  From that letter it is also proved that complainant always prayed for replacement of a new high grade TV but he is not interested to receive the said amount.

          Now question is whether there was any fault on the part of the ops in this regard and no doubt complainant purchased it by payment of Rs. 15,000/- and it is admitted position that LCD TV has its manufacturing defect which is admitted by the ops, but ops failed to replace same model TV in view of the fact that such a stock is not available in the manufacturing unit or any center.

          So, they asked the complainant either to take a new LCD TV of higher grade by further payment of Rs. 5,000/- or take back the purchased entire amount of the said TV and no doubt op sent Xerox copy of cheque including letter to complainant dated 02.07.2014.  But complainant’s own letter dated 10.07.2015 simply proves that complainant did not receive the cheque willingly and he has no desire to receive it.

          But it is fact that in the stock of the op, similar type of model of LCD TV set was not available.  So, they offered for refund of the purchased amount which is genuine approach of the op.  But we have failed to understand why complainant did not receive the amount forthwith.  In fact complainant is a very arrogant consumer, he wanted to get a higher graded model of LCD TV set in place of that defective one.  But ops requested to pay Rs. 5,000/- more in respect of higher grade TV.  But complainant’s intention was that replacement of LCD TV set against payment of lower amount of Rs. 15,000/-.  But that is a very bad theorization or thought to get such TV.  Such a consumer must be trainedpsychologically.  But psychologically higher grade LCD TV set on payment of lower amount cannot be entertained by this Forum.  Whatever it may be, the laches is not on the part of the ops or any negative attitude on the part of the ops is not proved.

          But for the adamant attitude of complainant, he willingly refused to take back the said cheque amount.  So the said LCD TV set is lying in the custody in the op but no negative attitude on the part of the ops is proved, though they performed their responsibility, asking complainant to receive the cheque of Rs. 15,000/- but complainant did not receive it for his adamant attitude for which ops cannot be condemned rather the complainant should be condemned for his anti-consumer psychology.

          In the result, we are disposing of this case by passing such necessary order and allowing this complaint in part without giving any cost.  In the result, complaint is disposed of.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part against op nos. 1 & 2 and same is dismissed against op no.3 without any cost.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to handover a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- positively within 30 days from the date of this order to the complainant before this Forum and complainant to hand over the defective set to the op in presence of this Forum and if ops fail to do that, in that case, op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay penal damages of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant and for not handing over the cheque in time, penal action shall be started against op nos. 1 & 2 for which they shall be liable to pay further interest over the said amount w.e.f. 02.07.2014 and till its full payment.