Haryana

Karnal

CC/384/2021

Madhav Raheja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jeeves Consumers Services Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Kumar Raheja

04 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 384 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.06.08.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:04.07.2022

 

Madhav Raheja son of Shri Suresh Kumar, resident of House no.11, Krishna Nagar, near Aghi Park, Karnal Aadhar no.792127918183 mobile no.9896079602.

               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Jeevas Consumers Services Pvt.Ltd. L-169, 13^th cross, 5^th main, Sector-6, HSR Layout, Bangaloe-560 102 through its Director.

 

2.     Jeeves Service Centre, shop no.50, Ground floor, Maya Puri, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Meera Ghati Chowk, near Raj Palace, Karnal through its authorized person.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Sh. Suresh Kumar Reheja, Adv. for the complainant.

                  Opposite parties exparte (vide order dt.30.03.2022)

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased 55”, MI LED TV, Model-L55M5-A1 through flipkart, vide invoice dated 29.07.2018, amounting to Rs.44,999/-. Complainant also purchased the extended warranty protection plan from the OP no.1 on 31.07.2018 for two years and paid a sum of Rs.3570/- by cash and as such the OP no.1 issued extended policy no.JFLKF12AD6186 and invoice no.JVS/7/5912 dated 31.07.2018. It is further averred that the one year warranty of any manufacturing defect was given by the supplier of the LED which was valid upto 28.07.2019 and as such the extended warranty commenced from 29.07.2019 to 28.07.2021. On 17.09.2020, the LED became out of order and stopped its functioning and thereafter on 18.09.2020, complainant made a telephonic call on customer care no.1800 4252 5252 of OP no.1. OP no.1 asked the complainant to supply the invoice and other documents. Complainant sent the same to OP no.1. Then OP no.1 sent a text message on 20.09.2020 to the complainant that OP no.1 has registered the claim of the complainant also sent a text message on 21.09.2020, Jeeves Engineer, Naveen Kumar will call him to fix an appointment. Thereafter, Naveen Kumar reached at the house of complainant and checked the LED and told that there is a defect in the supply board, so he can get the new one and would take a time of about 10 days. On 25.10.2020, OP no.1 sent a message that service of the LED of the complainant has been cancelled in their system. Then complainant on 28.09.2020 sent message through email to the OP no.1 and in reply OP has said that when part needed for the repair of LED TV has been received and engineer will visit and solve the problem of the LED in question. On 15.10.2020, complainant again sent a reminder through mail to OP no.1 to redress his grievance and to repair the LED TV and OP no.1 gave reply that they will send refund confirmation on mail ID of the complainant. On 18.10.2020, the complainant sent notice through mail to OP no.1 to do something for his claim, otherwise complainant will take legal action against the OPs. Thereafter, OP no.1 sent a message through mail that “they were not able to repair your product due to non-availability of part and will refund the TV amount after depreciation value. Ultimately, on 23.10.2020, OP no.1 cancelled the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant contacted the MI Customer Care Centre on telephone and registered the complaint and on the complaint of the complainant a engineer from G.S. Electronic IFB, Karnal, i.e. the authorized service centre of MI came and repaired the LED and charged Rs.4245/-, vide receipt no.1814 dated 29.10.2020. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to refund the cost of LED TV of Rs.44,999/- and Rs.4245/- on account of repair which was paid by the complainant for repair of TV and Rs.3570/- of extended warranty alongwith interest @ 24% and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.31,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OPs did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.03.2022 of this Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice dated 31.07.2018 regarding extended warranty Ex.C2, copy of call details and tax message Ex.C3, copy of email Ex.C4, copy of email dated 30.10.2020 Ex.C5, copy of original receipt dated 29.10.2020 of Rs.4245/- Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file carefully.

5.            Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased the LED in question through Flipkart. He further argued that complainant also purchased the extended warranty protection plan from the OP no.1 on 31.07.2018 for two years. He further argued that the one year warranty of any manufacturing defect was given by the supplier of the LED which was valid upto 28.07.2019 and as such the extended warranty commenced from 29.07.2019 to 28.07.2021. On 17.09.2020, the LED became out of order and stopped its functioning and thereafter complainant made many complaints to the OPs and sent message through email for repair of the LED but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant contacted the MI Customer Care Centre on telephone and registered the complaint and on the complaint of the complainant an engineer from G.S. Electronic IFB, Karnal, i.e. the authorized service centre of MI came and repaired the LED and charged Rs.4245/- while the LED was within extended warranty period and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             To prove his version complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and relied upon copy of bill/tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice dated 31.07.2018 regarding extended warranty Ex.C2, copy of call details and tax message Ex.C3, copy of email Ex.C4, copy of email dated 30.10.2020 Ex.C5, copy of original receipt dated 29.10.2020 of Rs.4245/- Ex.C6. It is evident from Ex.C2 dated 31.07.2018 complainant had obtained the extended warranty for the LED in question for two years and paid Rs.3570/-. It is also evident from reply of email Ex.C5 dated 28.09.2020 by which OP said that as part needed for repair has been received, the engineer will visit at the earliest to resolve the problem. It is also evident from receipt Ex.C6 dated 29.10.2020 OPs have received Rs.4245/- for repair of the LED whereas the LED was within extended warranty period. Hence, it has been proved on record the LED in question is having manufacturing defect and OPs have received the repair charges within warranty period.

9.            To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs have not placed on record any evidence and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant are also unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as complainant has used the LED approximately four years. Hence, he is only entitled for the replacement of the LED in question.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the LED in question to the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the LED of the same make and model is not available with the OPs, then the OPs will return the cost of the LED in question i.e. Rs.44999/- to the complainant. Complainant is also directed to handover the defective LED in question alongwith accessories to the OPs.  This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:04.07.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member