BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.194 of 2014

Date of Instt. 16.06.2014

Date of Decision :09.02.2015

Rajat Chopra and Rohit Chopra son of Pawan Chopra R/o H.No.NB 226 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Haier Corporate Office, Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd through its Managing Director, Director/General Manager/Manager/ Representative, Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New Delhi-110020.

2. Neha Enterprises, Haier Service Centre through its Managing Director, Director/General Manager/Manager/ Representative, 410, Avtar Nagar, Jalandhar, Opposite TV Centre authorized service centre.

3. Jumbo Distributor, L1/1 to 6 Sagar Complex, Opp.HP Petrol Pump, City Owali Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Jatinder Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Harinder Singh Prop. on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is customer and purchased a Haier LED by ordering online this product on 22.5.2014 and the same was delivered to the complainant vide invoice No.88341 /14/15/1407 dated 22.5.2014 on 31.5.2014 by opposite party No.3. On this complainant launched a request on the toll free number of haier i.e 18001029999 for the installation of the product from his registered mobile No.9815511688 and on this complainant got assurance that his product will be installed shortly and after few hours complainant received a call from the service centre that the technician will come to his place by the evening on the same day but none of the technician came to the complainant place to install the product. Complainant waited for the technician but no one came from the opposite parties, so on 4.5.2014 complainant called to the haier head office and enquired about the same and then complainant came to know that his request for installation was closed by the service centre, so this complainant was allotted with a complaint/reference number i.e CG20140531102592 and assurance was given by the opposite parties that his complaint will be resolved and the product will be installed shortly. No action was taken by the opposite parties regarding the above mentioned reference number and regarding the same complainant called on the toll free number again from his registered mobile number and narrated the same issue again and again and they assured to complainant that this complaint will be resolved on priority basis and before 7.00 PM technician will come and install the product as they have sent the reminder for the installation of the product. On such like averments, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to install his product on priority basis. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the opposite party No.2 had already installed the LED at the place of the complainant vide job sheet No.CG20140531100633. Moreover the complainant had an USB issue with the same LED which was also resolved by the opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 16.7.2014. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant had online purchased the LED and not directly from the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. Moreover, no assurance had ever been given by the opposite party No.2 to any of its customer/consumer for instant installation of the product because the product has a specific requirement of "Stand" which sometimes is not provided to the customer by seller and therefore whatever delay in installation is caused is due to unavailability of "Stand" with the LED itself. However the opposite party No.2 in the instant matter has not provided any deficient service and served to complainant on priority basis and as soon as the service centre of opposite party No.2 got the complaint of complainant they placed oder of "Stand" to their Ware House and as soon as the service centre of opposite party No.1 get the Stand they installed the LED at the place of complainant. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1&2/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the both the parties.

7. The dispute between the parties is regarding non installation of the LED purchased by the complainant online from 31.5.2014 till 25.6.2014. Ex.C1 is job sheet dated 31.5.2014 wherein the complainant singed under protest on 25.6.2014. On it the date of installation is mentioned as 25.6.2014. So LED purchased by complainant was installed by opposite parties No.1 and 2 after inordinate delay of 25 days. The reasons given by opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their written reply are that when the service centre get the complaint of the complainant they placed oder of Stand to their Ware House and as soon as the service centre of opposite party No.1 got the Stand they installed the LED at the place of complainant. This explanation is not hardly having any justification. Installation of LED purchased by complainant after 25 days constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The LED was installed on 25.6.2014 during pendency of the present complaint. The complaint was filed on 12.6.2014 and only thereafter the opposite parties No.1 and 2 installed the LED. So complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

8. In view of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.02.2015 Member President