Delhi

North

CC/228/2023

JAGDISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARI OM RETAIL PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 228/2023

In the matter of

Sh. Jagdish Kumar

S/o Sh. Bhawani Pher,

R/o N-64/29, Indrabasti,

Timarpur, Delhi-110054.                       …                 Complainant

 

Vs.

Hari Om Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Directors/ Authorised Signatory

Regd. Office at: 7679,

Near Amba Cinema Ghanta Ghar,

Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110001

Mob No.: 9711130169, 9811434052

 

Also at: Shop No. 88-90,

Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp

Delhi-110009                                      …                 Opposite Party No.1

 

Sh. Gaurav Juneja

Director/ Authorised Signatory of

Hari Om Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Office at:7679,

Near Amba Cinema Ghanta Ghar,

Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110001                  …                 Opposite Party No.2

 

AIWA Consumer Products LLP

Through its Partners/ Managing Director

Regd. Office at: House No.5,

Ground Floor, Block A, DDA Res Scheme,

Naraina Vihar, Delhi-110028                 …                 Opposite Party No.3

 

Present:       Shri Gaurav Jha, Ld. Advocate for Complainant.

ORDER

09/11/2023

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that OPs have deliberately sold faulty Television to the Complainant. The Complainant has purchased a TV on 04.12.2021 which was under warranty of three years from the date of purchase. It is the case of the complainant that on 08.08.2022 some blurry lines started to appear on the TV. The Complainant admittedly contacted the OP-1 and OP-2 respectively, who are seller and Director of the OP-1 respectively. There is no document on record to suggest that for such fault, the Complainant has filed any complaint with the manufacturer (OP-3 herein). Complainant has filed a WhatsApp conversation with customer care of OP_3. But in the said conversation dated 02.08.2023, the Complainant has only sent the copy of the invoice to OP-3 and have not lodged any complaint seeking repair of the faulty TV.

2. For any defect in the TV, the manufacturer, which gives the warranty on the product, is to be contacted. There is no role of the seller in providing post sales warranty services. In the case in hand, there are allegations of contacting the seller, but nothing on record suggests that the Complainant has contacted the manufacturer (OP-3 herein). Further, it is not the case of the complainant that the said TV stopped working since the date of its installation or a non-working TV was sold by the seller OP-1 and OP-2. The alleged defect in the said TV emerged only after 8 months of its installation.

3. We have also perused the documents filed along with the complaint including the certificate of warranty. The warranty conditions in the said certificate clearly indicate that the warranty serviced has to be provided by OP-3. There is no role of OP-1 and OP-2 in providing warranty services to the Complainant. It is argued by the Complainant that a legal notice was sent to all the OPs. He also argued that the said legal notice is the communication of the defect to all OPs. We have perused the legal notice as well. In the said legal notice, the Advocate on behalf of the Complainant has called upon the OPs to refund the value of the TV and not for the repair of the TV under warranty. Hence, such legal notice, in our opinion is not sufficient and proper.

4. As Complainant has not contacted the OP-3 for availing warranty services and repair of the TV under warranty, we are of the opinion that Complainant has filed this complaint at pre-mature stage.

5. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself only on the ground that this complaint is pre matured. We also grant liberty to the Complainant to move to this Commission if he is not given services by OP-3 once he lodges complaint with OP-3 for availing warranty services and/ or for repair/ replacement of the TV as per warranty conditions. Needless to say that at this stage we have not commented on the merits of the allegations of the Complainant and it will be open for the Complainant to raise all allegations as raised in this complaint at later stage, if the same arguments are still available to him.

6. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copy of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member