Delhi

East Delhi

CC/174/2018

ASHOK KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBM ELE. - Opp.Party(s)

.

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 174/18

 

Shri Ashok Kumar

CH. NO. 840, Saket Courts Complex,

New Delhi.

R/O F-304-B, Pandav Nagar,

Delhi-110091                                                            ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. KBM Electronic

1/32, Lalita Park ,

•  

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

 

2. Concerned Officer, Videocon

At:Plot No. 296, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-II, Gurugaon, Haryana                                                                                                                                          …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.05.2018

Judgement Reserved on: 22.07.2019

Judgement Passed on: 26.07.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

           Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Sh. Ashok Kumar, the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against KBM Electronic (OP-1) the dealer and Concerned Officer, Videocon (OP-2), the manufacturer.

            The facts in brief are that, on 15.11.2015, the complainant purchased Videocon LED TV Model No. VKV40FH/18XAH, DDB/FHD/Smart LL, 40 inches from OP-1 for Rs. 32,500/- It has been stated that the OP-1 had convinced the complainant to purchase LED TV manufactured by OP-2, enumerating the benefits of 5 years warranty, quality and after sales services of OP-2. The LED TV was delivered alongwith warranty card on the same day of purchase but, within one month of purchase, there was sound problem, for which OP-1 was informed. It has been further stated that gradually within one year of use, the quality of both picture and sound started to deteriorate and ultimately became non-functional. OP-1 was informed, who asked the complainant to visit Videocon Service Centre at Pandav Nagar. The LED TV was repaired and returned to the complainant after 15 days but it did not function properly. Again, on 30.03.2018, the complainant took LED TV for repairs, where he was informed that ‘Panel was defective’. The complainant requested OP-1 to change the LED TV, which was declined. Since, 30.03.2018, the complainant visited the mechanic several times, but every time the complainant was informed that the necessary components were not being supplied by OP-2, the manufacturer.

            It has been stated by the complainant that he being an Advocate, was using the LED TV as computer with internet services. Since, the repaired LED TV has not been returned to the complainant, hence, the present complaint with directions to OPs to refund Rs. 32,500/-, being the cost of LED TV Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental torture and agony and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Extended warranty, Job Sheet issued by mechanic, retail invoice dated 15.11.2015 and photo ID of complainant have been annexed with the complaint.

            Summons of the present complaint were served upon OP-1 and     OP-2. OP-1 was also served dasti but they refused to accept the summons and chose not to appear hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

            A letter alongwith authority letter was filed by OP-2 where they have stated that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings had been initiated against the company and that upon commencement of CIRP against the company moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) had been imposed by the Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench whereby the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the company including execution of any judgment, Decree or Order in any court of law tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority had been stayed. Accordingly all recovery proceedings, legal disputes, and claims against the company stood stayed during the CIRP period.

            Subsequently, they also stopped appearing and did not file their reply, hence, their right to file reply was closed.

            Ex-parte Evidence was filed on behalf of complainant where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint. He has placed reliance on the annexure annexed with the complaint. It has been stated that the warranty period was from 15.11.2015 to 14.11.2019 and OPs had failed to repair the said LED TV which was still under warranty period.

            We have heard the submissions of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant is aggrieved by the non repair of the LED TV manufactured by OP-2. The said product is under extended warranty and was given for repairs earlier for complaint regarding LCD Chassis/ LCD Power which was replaced. The Job Sheet placed on record pertains to 30.03.2018 where, the problem complained is of picture problem, it bears endorsement dated 22.04.2018, with endorsement in Hindi of date 20.05.2018 where it has been stated ”part not available”. Another endorsement dated 29.05.2018 also states “set is not ready”. Thus, it is amply clear that the product could not be repaired due to non availability of the part and was still lying with the Videocon Service Centre. The said LED TV could not be repaired for almost two months due to the reason mentioned above. The act/omission on the part of OP-2 amounts to deficiency in services.

The complainant has placed reliance on Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Jose Philip Mampillil Vs. M/S Premier Automobiles Ltd; AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1529 and Hon’ble NCDRC in, Ashoke Khan Vs Abdul Karim and Ors., IV (2005) CPJ 12 (NC)”, the facts of the present complaint are different from the judgments relied upon by the complainant. In the above cited judgment the products were defective at the time of delivery which was admitted by the dealer in the latter cited case but in the instant complaint the complainant has placed nothing on record to show that OP-1, the dealer has sold him the defective product rather the present case is of deficiency in after sales services. Therefore, OP-1 cannot be held liable.         Since, OP-2 has failed to file reply and place on record any order of NCLT, Mumbai, the allegations made by the complainant have remained unrebutted. Therefore, we direct OP-2 to co-ordinate with the Service Centre and return the repaired LED TV within one month from the date of receipt of this order with extended warranty of two years from the date of handing over the repaired LED TV to the complainant. In case the LED TV cannot be repaired OP-2 shall refund Rs.32,500/- being the cost of the product.

            We further award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony, this shall be inclusive of litigation expenses.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

     

  (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

         Member                                                                                      Member

   

                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                            President