BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.621 of 2019
Date of Institution : 16.10.2019
Date of Decision : 05.03.2020
Vijay Kumar s/o Ram Chander, aged about 47 years, resident of House No. 1408, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa-125055, Tehsil and District Sirsa(Haryana)
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 J.P. Trading Company, through it proprietor/partner, Sadar Bazar, Near Liberty Showroom, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana)
2.Videocon Industries Limited, through its Authorized Signatory, Videocon Tower, Rani Jhansi Road, Bloack-E-1, Jhandewala Extension, New Delhi-110055.
3. Service Plaza, Service Centre Videocon, through its Authorized Signatory, Masjid Wali Gali, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………… PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rishab Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a brand new 40 inch coloured Television/LED model VKC40FH-ZMAI from opposite party no.1 being authorized dealer of Op No.2 i.e. Videocon industries Limited for Rs.30,000/- and OP no.1 also issued a Bill No. 5894 dated 19.10.2014 in this regard. It is further averred that at the time of purchase of abovesaid Television/LED, OP no.1 assured the complainant that LED is manufactured by OP No.2 i.e. India’s leading Videocon Company and its LED is most popular products of company and its performance is wonderful and quality is world class. The op no.1 had also given five years warranty of the abovesaid LED as per company’s warranty policy. That on 05.09.2019, display screen of abovesaid LED became totally blank and no picture was visible but sound was functioning. That complainant lodged the complaint on Toll free number 0120-4500600 on the same day vide complaint No. LP-5299281909051 with OP No.2 company and left the LED with OP No.3 which assured that LED shall be returned to complainant after removing the said defect within 10 days as picture tube of LED is not working and it is to be replaced. That OP No.3 delivered the LED after one month on 06.10.2019 after changing the picture tube of LED but when the complainant started the LED at home, he found that image of picture tube is reflecting on the screen. On 6.10.2019 complainant again visited the O.P. No. 3 and told him that image of picture tube is reflecting on the screen and main purpose of viewing the T.V. has not yet been fully solved. Thereafter, O.P. No. 3 again kept the LED with it and told the complainant that said defect shall be removed within 2-3 days. That O.P. No. 3 delivered the LED to complainant on 12.10.2019 and when he started the LED, he found that the problem of picture tube is solved but the complainant found that upper left side corner of LED is showing dark space/line, which occurred due to mishandling of LED by O.P. No. 3. It is further averred that on 13.10.2019, complainant again visited the office of O.P. no. 3 with darkness in upper left side corner of LED and lodged complaint on Toll free No. as mentioned above with O.P. No. 2 but this time O.P. No. 3 refused to remove the said defect without any plausible reason. That complainant pointed out these defects to O.P. No.1 i.e. dealer of O.P. No. 2 in the month of September and October, 2019 and on many occasions talked to company on its toll free number for the said purpose. That on 13.10.2019, ops have flatly refused to remove the defect of LED when lED was still within warranty and AMC period had not expired. Ops no.1 and 2 clearly told that such defect cannot be removed. That is seems that op no.3 has mishandled the LED of complainant and defects are still persisting and have not been removed due to which complainant is facing great hardship and ops have caused deficiency of service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding no locus standi, no cause of action, maintainability and suppression of material facts and that complainant is not a consumer as per the definition given in Section 2(1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that answering op has no concern with the service and later on development taken place between the complainant and service centre incharge. As per policy of the manufacturing company, the answering op is only authorized to sell out the sealed product and after selling the same, the responsibility of maintenance and minor defect shall remain with the care centre and the manufacturer company. The complainant never approached to answering op for the alleged allegations. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that no such complaint with regard to blank display of screen ever intimated to anybody and even to the manufacturer or answering op no.3. It is further submitted that a complaint was received vide LP-5299281909051 with regard to television having brand Videocon through toll free number, as the job card was created in the system automatically and date of service was 19 September, 2019. Accordingly, the information was forwarded to opposite party No. 3 and complainant brought the LED in question in service centre i.e. op no.3. It is further submitted that allegations regarding changing of picture tube are incorrect and denied. That after service, said LED was taken back by the complainant personally in a car. In the course of travelling light emitting diodes were gone upset and imaging problem thus occurred, the same was again rectified and again complainant took back said LED in perfect working condition. It is further submitted that another complaint was made pertaining to date 01.11.2019 but even after the creation of the job card the complainant did not get the services from OP no.3, however, it came to notice of OP No.3 through this complaint that there appears a dark spot in upper left side corner of LED, whereas when the complainant took back LED after service that was in perfect condition and after checking he himself took the said LED to his home and it may be result of the transportation. Opposite party No. 3 has never refused the services to the complainant as advised or interacted by the manufacturer. There is no deficiency on the part of answering op and complainant has used word seems which shows that complainant is not sure about the person who caused damage to the LED as alleged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Notice was issued to op no.2 which received back with the report of refusal. Since none appeared on behalf of op no.2, as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of plan Ex.C2, copy of e-mail message Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Satpal Manager/ Proprietor of op no.1 as Ex.RW1/A. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar, authorized signatory as Ex.R1 and copies of service job card Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.
8. Undisputedly, complainant had purchased a LED of 40 inches from opposite party no.1 on 19.10.2014 for a valid consideration of Rs.30,000/- and said LED was manufactured by op no.2. It is further undisputed fact between parties that LED of complainant was not working properly and he had been approaching OP no.3 for repair of his LED from time to time. He approached to op no.3 on 5.9.2019, 6.10.2019, 12.10.2019 and on 13.10.2019 which is evident from copies of job cards. Though op no.3 made their level best to make LED defect free, but however, as per allegations of complainant, LED is not displaying proper picture as a result of which he is suffering harassment. He approached ops number of times for repair of LED. It is further undisputed fact that LED was within warrantee period. It is settled principle of law that it is legal obligation of the manufacturer to provide after sale services to the customers like complainant and services had been provided by op no.3 i.e. service centre of op no.2. But however, LED suffers from some defect till the date the complainant filed present complaint which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to carry out necessary repairs in the LED of the complainant to make it defect free even by replacing any part free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of LED against proper receipt and verification. We further direct ops no.2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:05.03.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
