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. 4/16

In the matter of:

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Briefly put, grievance of the complainant in the present complaint arises out of the deficiency alleged on the part of OP1, OP2 & OP3 as seller / dealer, service centre and manufacturer of LED TV Model LA29B1000 respectively  purchased by complainant from OP1 on 18.11.2013 vide invoice no 17294 for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- inclusive of VAT. After the expiry of the warranty period, the subject LED started giving functional problem like getting switch off, blinking of screen for which the complainant approached OP2 for repairs and the service engineer of OP2 checked the said TV on 12.10.2015 and changed the main board of the LED on chargeable basis of Rs. 7,000/- vide invoice no 167404 with assurance that there shall be no problem with the LED and if any arises, the defective part shall be replaced free of cost. However, when the subject LED continued to malfunction despite replacement of part for which several complaints were lodged by the complainant with OP2, OP2 failed to take any action on the said complaint. After much pursuation and follow up by the complainant, when the service engineer of OP2 visited the complainant residence, he denied to repair the said LED free of cost and demanded Rs. 18,000/- for change of its screen to which the complainant opposed stated that he had already incurred expenses of Rs. 7,000/- in repairs few days back and cannot again spend Rs. 18,000/- when he was assured free of cost repair after first repairs. Therefore, feeling aggrieved at the refusal by the OPs to repair his LED free of cost, causing him mental agony and harassment, complainant was constrained to file this complaint in this Forum against the OPs praying for issuance of direction against them to pay Rs. 25,000/- as damages, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5000/- towards litigation charges.
2. Complainant has annexed copy of retail invoice dated 18.11.2013 of Rs. 18,000/- for purchase of LED from OP1 and copy of retail invoice dated 12.10.2015 issued by OP2 for Rs. 7,000/- towards repairs charges of LED.
3. Since the grievance of the complaint was only against OP2 & OP3. Notice was issued to the OP2 & OP3 on 13.01.2016 and was served on 23.01.2016 and 25.01.2016 respectively. However, none appeared on behalf of both OPs and therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.2016.
4. The son of the complainant apprised the Forum of the death of the complainant dated 23.04.2016 and moved impleadment application for himself as complainant henceforth alongwith death certificate of his father. Complainant also filed amended memo parties deleting OP1 from array of parties.
5. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 13.07.2016 and 11.09.2018 respectively reiterating his grievance against the OPs and prayer for relief sought against them.
6. We have perused the complaint file and documents relied upon by the complainant in support of his case / grievance against OP.
7. It is admitted by complainant that the subject LED was out of warranty period when the defect arose therein. The Hon'ble National Commission in Zenith Computer Ltd. Vs Kiran Desai (2006) 3 CPR 287 (NC) held that after period of warranty, it was for the complainant to procure the part from any source including the Petitioner (Zenith). Even if it is accepted that the Petitioner refused to sell toner, that could not come under the definition of ‘unfair trade practice’. The deal between these two parties comes to an end after the expiry period of warranty which in this case expired much earlier. In the present case in hand, applying the same ratio / view of Hon'ble National Commission, the OPs were under no obligation to repair / replace the defective part of the subject LED free of cost since the same was long out of warranty.
8. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as devoid of merit with no order as to cost as no deficiency of service of cause of action has arisen against the OP in favour of the complainant.
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on 14.03.2019