Punjab

StateCommission

A/429/2018

Rekha rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

JMD electronics - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,           PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.429 of 2018

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 31.07.2018                

                                                        Order Reserved on : 07.12..2018

                                                          Date of Decision     : 13.12.2018

 

Rekha Rani w/o Ravinder, House No.9, Badal Colony, Ward No.10, District S.A.S Nagar, (Mohali), Punjab 140603 , through Om Parkash Chauhan.

 

                                                                   ..Appellant/Complainant               

                   Versus

 

1.      JMD Electronics, Chandigarh –Zirakpur Main Road, Zirakpur- (Dealer)

2.      Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited (Regional Office), Plot No. 256, Phase-9, Mohali.

3.      Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited (Main Office), Plot no.2, Kalkaji Industrial Area, New Delhi 110 019.

 

                                            … Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Mohali.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

           

Present:-

For the appellant       :  Sh.Om Parkash, father of the

                                      Complainant.

          For the respondents  :  None       

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

                    Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 16.05.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali, dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before District Forum and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.                The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that she purchased Ultra Lloyd Smart LED T.V Model L50UHDN (Sr.No.3T E 50 G 1439050 1K6H 180326) from the authorized dealer namely JMD Electronics Chandigarh-Zirakpur Main Road  Zirakpur, vide invoice no. 944 dated 02.06.2016 against down payment of  Rs.32,500/-  in cash and balance payment of Rs.30,000/- to be paid in installments @ Rs.2,656/- in period of 12 months duration against sanctioned loan of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.62,500/- to the authorized dealer of LED TV  and it was installed at her father’s house no.9 Badal Colony Ward no.10 Zirakpur , as his father gave down payment and balance loan amount was to be paid by her father. The complainant signed completion of paper formalities to get the loan sanctioned to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for purchasing this TV for her father. There were defects in the said LED TV and several complaints were made to the dealer and manufacturing company both on phone and on toll free numbers, besides written complaints as well. Mr.Devender Regional Service Head gave no response to the complaints. Mr.Ramesh Chand Gupta Company Engineer attended to the complaints and inspected TV and he found that its Opera TV Stores applications were not working. The above Engineer himself pointed out the defects of Opera TV Stores applications, whereas he remained silent with regard to other defects in the TV. The complainant moved written complaint on  28.06.2016  to Regional Service Head and Mr. Devender Regional Service Head  convinced her father for replacement of TV with another TV with no defects or to refund the cost of TV Set. When her father went to the office of OPs,  the mobile phone set of his grandson was seized by them and they called the police against her father as well thereat. The authorized dealer had not given smart LED TV L50UHDN at the first time to complainant. The complainant received smart TV from the said dealer after compromise, which was also not an android one as per choice and order. The complainant did not want to replace this LED because already Mr. Rana  senior person from Regional Office Mohali stated that company has not manufactured any android TV so far. The defect of applications in the Opera TV Stores is in all the smart TVs of Lloyd. The complainant had to purchase an android smart TV, which the company has not manufactured so far. Even the TV set, as replaced to her, also has defects in it. The complainant alleged that the authorized dealer charged Rs.2510/- in excess from her for this TV Set  against price of Rs.59,990/- . Almost all applications of LED TV were not working properly. Besides, while operating these applications, some of them even hang up and ultimately have to switch off the TV. The TV started itself without pressing the power switch of the remote. The sound of the TV was not clear.  The options given in the menu for sound, just as standard, music, theater, speech were not useful. The volume of the TV’s remote did not match with the volume of the set up box remote. The sound sometimes became dull. The quality of sound and picture other than HD both were even not equal to the quality of sound and picture of an ordinary TV. Both the sound and picture of the TV at some options were dull. Therefore, she filed the present complaint and prayed for following reliefs against OPs :-

 OPs be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as  compensation for mental harassment, Rs.30,000/- as humiliation, besides Rs.50,000/- for valuable time & money spent, Rs.40,000/- for mental torture by OPs and Rs.50,000/-as miscellaneous expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that OP no.1 is not a manufacturer of Electronic goods, but an authorized dealer of OPs no.2 and 3, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable against OP no.1. Earlier LED TV was replaced with new LED TV of higher value by OP no.1 on the choice of the complainant, yet the complainant had only paid a total sum of Rs.33434/- as down payment of six installments + subsequent payment of Rs.17,500/- towards total cost of subsequent LED TV including Rs.2800/- as processing charges of loan in cash to OP no.1. The total price of the subsequent LED TV was Rs.62500/- plus Rs.2800/- as processing charges of the loan.  OP no.1 has sold the LED TV to complainant with heavy discounts as MRP of the LED TV was much higher at that time i.e. Rs.89990/-. The quotation as alleged by the complainant is totally false and fabricated.  The complainant had purchased the LED TV of Lloyd Company after her complete satisfaction from OP no.1. Moreover, the company does not manufacture any android TV at this stage and it was also not such a demand of the complainant at the time of purchase from OP . Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP no.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. OPs no.2 and 3 is company dealing in the electronic goods and has several dealers throughout Chandigarh and other places, which have been selling their products like electronics goods, LED, Air Conditioner etc to the public through their dealers. The complainant approached at the shop of OP no.1 for purchase of LED and purchased the same of Lloyd company. After some days, complainant had again approached OP no.1 and asked for replacement of the LED. She demanded the other model of LED as a replacement of the earlier LED purchased  by her from OP no.1. OP no.1 had replaced the LED with LED model demanded by her.  After some days, again she started making complaints for replaced LED to OP no.1 and OPs no.2 and 3. The job sheet made by Technician clearly showed that applications for which she made the complaint were not working due to low speed of internet and the same was duly informed to  her at the same time.  The job sheet made by the technician of OPs no.2 and 3 was signed by the complainant with a note of not being satisfied and she wanted the replacement of the LED This note clearly showed the malafide intention of complainant that she never tried to connect the LED with high speed internet,  but again and again was making complaints just trying to blackmail OPs no.2 and 3. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs no.2 and 3 even on merits and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                The authorized representative of complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit  Ex.CW-1/1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs no.2 and 3 tendered in evidence  affidavit of Sh. Surender Rana Assistant Manager as Ex.OP-2/1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 was set exparte before District Forum, vide order dated 09.02.2018.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Forum Mohali dismissed the complaint of the  complainant by virtue of order dated 16.05.2018. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Mohali, complainant now appellant, has carried this appeal against the same.

6.                I have heard authorized representative of complainant Om Parkash being her father as none appeared for respondent during the arguments of this appeal and also examined the record of the case.

7.                The first submission of authorized representative of appellant is that the authorized dealer/OP no.1 charged excess amount of Rs.2510/- from her over the actual price of Rs.59,990/- of above TV Set. The complainant initially purchased LED TV set, vide invoice Ex.C-1 dated 27.05.2016. It was replaced with Llyod LED TV 50 L50OUHDN on 02.06.2016, vide invoice Ex.C-2. The grievance of authorized representative of the appellant is that complainant purchased LED TV from OP no.1/authorized dealer, who has been charged in excess to the tune of Rs.2510/- than actual price of Rs.59,990/-.  He contended that authorized dealer/OP no.1 charged 62500/-, vide invoice Ex.C-2 against actual price of Rs.59,990/- of the above TV Set . The District Forum has correctly observed that complainant has not agitated this matter in the complaint Ex.C-3 dated 28.06.2016. Perusal of Ex.C-3 makes it clear that complainant filed written complaint to Manufacturing Company  but there is no such grievance with regard to overcharging of the amount of Rs.2510/-. This version of the complainant is absent in the complaint dated 28.06.2016 Ex.C-3 of the complainant , whereas the complainant instituted this complaint before District Forum on 16.09.2016 subsequent thereto. This fact has strong effect over this fact that complainant only pressed this version in this case. No quotations taken by the complainant from authorized dealer of TV Set have been on the record to unravel this controversy. OP no.1 pleaded and proved that actual MRP of the said product was much higher at that time i.e. Rs.89990/-  and heavy discount was given and thereafter TV Set was sold for Rs.62500/- . The TV Set was disposed of to complainant by OP no.1 at lower price than its MRP at that time. The complainant should have been conscious of this fact with regard to pricing factor at the time of purchase of TV Set  and we find no substance in this submission of appellant on this point and same is repelled. Even otherwise Consumer Fora does not look into the price aspect of the matter.

8.                The next grievance of the complainant is that her father went to lodge complaint regarding defective TV set supplied to her and the official of OPs misbehaved with her father and called the police to give undue harassment to him. If it constitutes cognizable evidence,  then matter is cognizable by the police for that act of OPs. The District Forum has not accepted this version by holding that complainant has the option to approach the police authorities in that regard only, if felt aggrieved.

9.                Now, I come to grips with the actual controversy in this case.  I proceed to decide it on the record with the aid of evidence on the record. The evidence on the record has been carefully perused by me with the able assistance of authorized representative of the complainant. OPs no.2 and 3 deputed an expert technician to inspect the LED and job sheet  no.944 which  was prepared in this regard,  but complainant withheld it from the Forum, whereas it has been adduced in evidence by OPs no.2 and 3, vide Ex.OP-2/2 on the record.  It carries signatures of the complainant with her remarks 'not satisfied' thereon. The mere grievance of the complainant is that she sought LED TV set equipped with android  facility,  but the Llyod Company has not been manufacturing LED TV with android facility.

It was entire wish of the complainant either to get it for its purchase or to repulse it at the threshold. The Llyod Company is not expected to deliver that android TV outfitted with android facility, which is not manufactured by this Company at all. No replacement of that product can be given to complainant, which is not manufactured by the above company  at all to satisfy the wish of the complainant. We find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs,  in not replacing the LED TV set with android facilities, as per the propounded case of complainant.

10.              The technician being an Engineer has given his report Ex.OP-2/2  on the record, which is signed by the complainant although with the remarks expressing her dissatisfaction thereon. It has recorded that entire problem in the  TV Set was on account of slow speed of internet. These could  have been set right by installing an instrument of fast internet speed by the complainant to run smooth functioning of all applications of TV Set. Vide report Ex.OP-2/2, no malfunctioning defect is found in the TV Set and desired applications of Opera was possible with high-speed internet only.  The remarks  of the Engineer in the job sheet Ex.OP-2/2 vide no. 944 established it on the record and it hardly matters that complainant expressed her dissatisfaction with the same. The District Forum has, thus, correctly arrived at the conclusion that less working of the applications in the TV Set is attributable solely to slow speed of internet only and not to any inherent manufacturing defect in TV Set or the other defects whatsoever, as averred by the complainant in this case.

11.              As a result of our above discussion, I find no illegality or material infirmity or perversity in the order of the District Forum Mohali calling for any interference therein.  Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

12.              Arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.12.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                       (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                         

December  13, 2018                                                           

(ravi)