Delhi

East Delhi

CC/488/2015

CHANDER SAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

JUMBO - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2017

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         488/ 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  10/07/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 12/05/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          15/05/2017   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Chander Sain Wadhwani, adult 

S/o Late Sh S D Wadhwani

R/o 134-B, Pocket A, 

Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi 110091……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Jumbo Electronics

Shop no. 327B, GIP Mall,

Sector 38 A, Noida 201301

 

2-M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

1^st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chauk

Sec. 25, Gurgaon 122001…………………………………………………....Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

This complaint has been filed u/s 2(1)(c) i &ii r/w sub section (d)i &ii of the Consumer Protection Act1986 by the complainant against OP1 alleging unfair trade practice adopted by OP1 for supplying inferior quality goods instead of booked one by the complainant. 

Brief Facts of the case                

Complainant booked one Panasonic TV having its specification as 40A403DX model 40” LED TV 403 series with special two features as IPS LED and 178 degree (TV) viewing for a sum of Rs 39,900/- on 14/02/2015 having two years warranty from Jumbo Electronics/OP1. The said TV was delivered on 15/02/2015 at complainant’s house by OP1 vide ExCW1/1.

It was stated that the said TV was of lower quality and specification and also had one year’s warranty card in the carton which was unsealed. Complainant immediately informed OP1 for replacing the delivered TV to the booked one. It was stated that OP1 adviced to lodge the complaint on customer care no. of Panasonic India Ltd. / OP2 who were the manufacturer and supplier of the goods. Email was sent to OP2 on 15/02/2015 who told to contact OP1.

Despite of repeated calls and sending email to OP1 and 2, he could not get the booked goods, so sent legal notice on dated 13/04/2015. Thereafter complainant sent many emails to OPs, but did not get any satisfactory reply. Thus he filed this complaint for replacement of delivered goods to the booked one with compensation of Rs 39,900/-for harassment suffered by complainant with litigation charges Rs 20,000/-

Notices were served. OP1 submitted written statement denying all the allegations, averments, contentions and statement of complainant. It was stated that OP1 were the seller of good quality electronic gadgets in the market and had good reputation. It was stated that the booked product was supplied by the OP1 and had same model and serial no. which was also shown to the complainant when OP1 visited his residence and shown the sticker and model no.  It was also stated that OP1 had no liability in replacement. OP1 also cited judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in Consumer Unity & Trust vs CMD in vol.1(CPJ)1 SC in 1991 where it was held that “where there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of Appellant, then any loss etc., which is caused to the consumer the appellant cannot be held liable for the same”.     

Hence, there was no deficiency and unfair trade practice adopted by the OP1, so this complaint may be dismissed.  

OP2 submitted their written statement denying all the allegations against OP2. It was admitted that complainant had purchased the same TV from OP1 and had no manufacturing defects and OP2 had replied all the emails sent by complainant, but denied for receiving legal notice by them.  It was also denied that OP2 had given two years warranty for the product. All their products had one year standard warranty from the date of purchase as per warranty card.  More so, complainant had raised issues of printed matters of card board carton having series of 400 was accepted as they had only such types of cartons, but specifications and model no. had to be verified which was found to be the same by the OP1.  So, complainant was not entitled for any relief against OP2.     

Complainant filed rejoinder and evidences on affidavit where he affirmed that he did not get the same model which he booked as per his contentions in his complaint. Complainant submitted evidences as one sticker zerox of OP2 showing A400 series media player PC printed TQFT40A403 and on zerox of different models of LED TV AS630 to SV series where he had underlined 5^th model photo of A403 series having models varying from TH40A403DX to TH23A403DX having range of MRP from Rs 53,000/- to 15,500/-. Complainant had ticked upper model having its MRP Rs 53,000/- whereas complainant had affirmed on affidavit that his contents of complaint were true and correct and OP1 had supplied low grade TV having A400 series. Complainant had also submitted voice record details.  

OP2 also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mr. Satish Misra, AR of OP2 who affirmed on oath that their products had one year standard warranty and devoid of any manufacturing defects.  OP2 stated that allegations against OP2 were of no merit as complainant had not submitted any concrete proof of evidence that he received lower quality goods which he booked neither through any agency nor through 3 service coupons supplied with the warranty card which could establish the allegation of complainant. It was accepted that the goods was supplied in carton had printed higher model series TVs as other models had been discontinued by OP2 and all their TVs had good quality with two special features as IPS LED features with full HD, but strongly denied for any TV having MRP Rs 39,999/- as paid by the complainant.     

Arguments were heard at length from complainant in person and counsel of OPs. Order was reserved.  

We have perused all the facts and evidences filed by complainant and OPs on affidavit and are on record. It was evident that the said TV was booked by complainant and allegation of lower quality of TV was supplied by OP1, but after scrutinizing various evidences submitted on record, it was seen that there was confusion of carton in which the said TV was supplied by OP1 which was clarified by OP2 that they had only A400 series boxes and as all other models were discontinued and A400 series was the best and upgraded model in LED TV. It was also seen that complainant had neither established unfair trade practice adopted by OP1 as higher model TV price was paid and lower priced model was supplied nor established his allegation of any defect or variation in model as alleged having received lower quality product had suffered any damages in viewing the pictures or had to pay extra amount in service of the said TV as all the three service coupons supplied by OP2 were annexed as blank.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not prove any deficiency in services against OP1 and OP2 by any concrete evidence. In our opinion, there is no merit in this case and complaint deserved to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost to order.  

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Act and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                                 

     Member                                                                                                                          Member                                                                                   

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                 President