CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.122/2020
RAJIV SHANKAR,
74, GALI NUMBER 3, APARN VIHAR,
JAITPUR EXTENSION, JAITPUR BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI 110044 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
INFINITY RETAIL STORE (CROMA)
CROWN-MALL A-012,
MAIN MATURA ROAD,
FARIDABAD, HARYANA .…..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-16.09.2020
Date of Order- 02.08.2024
O R D E R
DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to deficiency of service and selling of defective product by the OP which amounts to unfair trade practise.
Complainant in his complaint has stated that he purchased a TV Model No. TCL LED 81 CM, 32S6500 invoice dated 24.02.2019 from OP-Infinity retail store Croma A-012, Main Matura Road Faridabad, Haryana on 24.02.2019. The TV set had three years warranty but just after one year of operation of TV the speaker became faulty and developed lines on the screen, thereafter, TV started automatically getting closed.
The complainant has further stated that he made a complaint to customer care Croma centre and TCL (repair centre) bearing complaint number IN03202002841601. A mechanic was sent by TCL who informed the complainant that complete panel needs to be changed and the same will be done within two days.
Complainant has further stated that it has been six months since his TV has not been rectified by the complainant. Complainant has further stated that the OP mechanic has visited 6 times, 14 times emails have been exchanged between the complainant and the TCL and about 25 times telephonic conversations have taken place but the problem of faulty TV still remains. Complainant has further stated that during COVID-19, he had to undergo lot of problems but despite restoration of normalcy after Covid-19 his complaint regarding faulty TV still remains unresolved. The complainant personally went to Croma store on 06.09.2020 and he was informed by the OP that he should leave the TV with OP and as and when the fault is rectified he would be informed, but on asking the time frame he was mistreated.
Complainant has further stated that it has been the practice of the OP not to provide after sales service and resolve the complaint of the customers. If there was a problem in the motherboard of the TV which was pointed out by the technician on his first visit, then, why it was not changed by the OP. In fact, every time the technician comes he updates the software on the old motherboard of TV and makes it temporarily functional but after some time the TV again stops working, this period of time TV was still under warranty.
In the end the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to refund an an amount of Rs.13,990/- i.e. the cost of the TV purchased by him or else he may be provided a new TV with warranty and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. He has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental harassment and problems faced by him due to faulty TV and Rs.16,000/- as cost towards wastage of time of the complainant.
Notice was sent to OP and as per the track report dated 19.11.2020 the delivery of the notice was confirmed. Considering the problems due to COVID-19 situation at relevant period of time, fresh notice dated 21.04.2022 and 24.06.2022 were sent to OP. Service of notice dated 24.06.2022 stands confirmed on OP as per track report. Despite service of notice on OP, OP preferred not to appear and accordingly, OP was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2022.
Complainant filed evidence by way of an affidavit which was taken on record. Complainant also filed documents pertaining to exchange of emails between the complainant and the OP and details of chat discussions. Arguments were also tendered by the complainant.
The Commission has considered the material on record including the evidence supported by an affidavit and other chat documents and emails exchanged between the complainant and the OP. It is established that the complainant purchased a TV from OP on 24.02.2019 which carried guarantee for three years. It is also seen that the complainant has made a lot of efforts and follow up with the OP regarding faulty TV which is not working and had developed problem in speaker in the first year of operation itself. Later on, the TV also developed lines on the screen and started working erratically and finally it stopped working. It is also observed that vide e-mail dated 07.06.2020 sent by OP to complainant, OP has apologised for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and despite assurance it is seen that different technicians have been visiting the complainant for rectifying the TV and despite suggesting change of motherboard of the TV by the technician who visited for the first time OP has taken no action in changing the motherboard rather technicians have been updating the software of the old motherboard of the TV as a consequence TV functioned normally for a day or so and again started malfunctioning and stopped later on.
It is also seen that on 06.06.2020 some minor repair work was carried out in TV but it did not work rather at 9:30 PM on the same day the TV stopped working. The complainant has expressed his unhappiness and dissatisfaction regarding the quality of service provided by OP and despite waiting for so long no effective steps have been taken by the OP neither new motherboard was provided in the TV nor any refund was given to the complainant despite his repeated requests as observed from various emails. It is also observed that no replacement for faulty part was provided by the OP.
It is observed that despite service of notice on OP, OP preferred not to appear and defend the said complaint. Seeing the conduct and the casual manner of the OP, it is clear that OP had no intentions to resolve the complaint of the complainant although there have been promises made by OP through various emails which are on record as filed by the complainant and also along with evidence duly exhibited.
In view of above, services of OP have been found to be highly deficient, it is also seen that motherboard is a major component in the TV and just after one year of working of TV motherboard has gone bad which was pointed out by the technician. Generally, motherboard does not become faulty due to one year of operation of TV and since no steps have been taken by the OP, hence by this act of OP is amount to unfair trade practice. Ends of justice would be served for which following directions are passed against OP:
- OP to refund an amount of Rs.13,990/- i.e. the cost of the TV within one month failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum till its realisation.
- An amount of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment, inconvenience and problems caused by the OP.
- An amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Order to be uploaded and to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the order. File consigned to record room.
