JUDGEMENT

          Complainantby filing this complaint has submitted that with a view to purchase a new 3D LED TV visited the store of op no.1 a reputed Electronics Store in the locality and on the same date he purchased a 32 inch, 3D, LED TV from the said store of op no.1 vide invoice No.BTIDC/3697 being Model No.32LM6200 make LG amounting to Rs.43,200/-.

          At the time of said purchase it was represented by the op no.1 that the said 3D, LED TV is a new one having super-speciality of service and at the time of said purchase complainant made application for loan from the op no.3 having a hope and trust of their service.  Fact remains that op no.1 on 28.01.2013 at afternoon delivered the said 3D, LED TV to complainant and in the evening the said TV was installed at the house of complainant by the op no.2 and representation was made that the said TV was a brand new one and after installation the op no.2 left the house of the complainant hurriedly.

          Thereafter complainant found that the item is defective one having no clear picture and low sound and after meticulous scrutiny it was found that the TV was not new one rather it has been used prior to the said purchase and in fact op no.1 deceived the complainant in all respect and further the figure and words engrossed in the TV Panel is hazy one and practically op no.1 by adopting unfair trade practice sold the second hand TV to the complainant.

          Observing such sort of malpractice on the part of the op no.1 upon the complainant, complainant informed the said matter to the op no.1 and requested the op no.1 for return back the same and also complainant called for the op no.3 to stop to proceed with the said loan by phone but op nos. 1 & 3 refused the same and finding no other alternative complainant on 29.01.2013 sent a letter to the op no.1 & 3 narrating the facts and op nos. 1 & 3 thereafter assured the complainant to address his redressal of grievances and to contact with their superior furnishing their name and phone nos. as supplied by the op no.1 and they were the Khosla – Mr. Dipankar (M. No. 9874249769 and Bajaj – Mr. Kutub (M. No. 9874249788 and thereafter complainant lodged a complaint in regard to the said defective TV and received docket No.RNA130202097434 through SMS on his mobile being No.9836015779 on 02.02.2013.       

          Complainant also informed to Mr. BubaiMondal through E-mail in regard not to proceed with the loan amount on 02.02.2013.  complainant sent another letter about the said defective item to op no.1 & 3 on 07.02.2013 and also asked not to proceed with the loan amount.

          Thereafter on 09.02.2013 against the request of the complainant, op no.3 sent a E-mail in regard to the said disbursement of the loan and on that very day a Female Executive of the op no.3 threated the complainant in filthy languages and told complainant to refrain to return back the item otherwise mussel men be sent for recovery of alleged due amount.

          After that incident on 21.02.2013 complainant also sent a letter to the Sales Manager of LG, but in spite of repeated requests the ops did not redress the grievances of complainant as they have their hands in glove to each other and they adopted unfair trade practice to sell the defective items to the purchaser and finding no other alternative complainant was compelled to file this case for redressal and relief.

          On the other hand on service of the notices upon the both the op nos. 1 & 2 did not turn up to contest the case though notices were delivered upon them on 23.04.2013.  But only op no.3 Bajaj Finance Ltd. appeared and submitted written version stating that complainant has entered into loan proposal No.4100CD00397198 on 08.02.2013 and availed of finance of Rs.43,136/- for the purchase of LG-LED TV and the monthly installment to be paid per month is Rs.4,134/- and the contract period is of 10 months and rate of interest is 00% p.a. and the complainant towards payment of loan installment dues has issued ECS Mandate (Auto Debit).

          It is further submitted by the op that as per contract the complainant topay loan installment nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 but his ECS mandate got dishonoured for the reasons “insufficient funds” and it is evident from statement of account as on the date an amount of Rs.21,570/- towards installments is due from the complainant.  It is further submitted that as per Clause No.14 – The Borrower(s) shall be exclusively responsible for delivery of the product from the dealer/manufacturer/seller, as the case may be and the company shall not be liable for any delay in delivery or non-delivery of the product and or with respect to the quality, condition, fitness, suitability or otherwise whatsoever of the said product and it is clear from the above terms and conditions that op no.3 is a simple financer and is not at all responsible for condition, suitability or otherwise of the product and in relation between op nos. 2 & 3 it is principal to principal and the op no.3 is not agent of op nos. 1 & 2, thus op no.3 as financier is not at all responsible or liable for vicarious liability.  So, the op has prayed for dismissal of this case and matter may be taken up with the dealer or manufacturer of the product i.e with the op no.1 Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and op no.2 and in fact there is no deficiency on the part of the op no.3.  So, they have prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

          After hearing the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the op and also complainant himself and further considering the fact as disclosed in the complaint including the papers that is materials papers submitted by the complainant it is clear that complainant purchased the said LG-LED TV Model No.32LM6200 on 26.01.2013 and the total price was Rs.43,200/- and fact remains complainant at the time of purchase prayed for loan from the op no.3 and that purchase was made on 26.01.2013 and it was installed by the op nos. 1 & 2 by their technician on 28.01.2013 afternoon.

          It is also fact that as per prayer of the complainant loan matter was processed but fact remains that complainant sent a letter to the Insurance Company to stop loan matter on 06.02.2013 stating the fact that after installation it was detected that the picture quality of the TV is not satisfactory, left side speaker was defective and apparently it was found that it was used one and further he also reported the matter.But it is found that op no.3 did not consider that fact and it is also proved that complainant repeatedly asked the op no.1 for return of the said defective second hand used TV and ultimately sent a letter on 07.02.2013.  But the prayer was not considered by the op no.1.

          Another factor is that Insurance Company already paid that amount i.e. Rs.43,136/- because balance Rs.64/- was paid in cash by the complainant at the time of purchasing of the LG-LED TV.  Most interesting factor is that op nos. 1 & 2 even after receipt of the notice of the case and received several complain made by the complainant to the op nos. 1 & 3 just after purchase of the TV set that his grievances is defective nature of that TV and is second hand one but no answer is given by the op nos. 1 & 2 and practically considering that fact it is clear that op nos. 1 & 2 have no guard to challenge the testimony of the complainant regarding the defective TV and fact remains complainant has failed to enjoy the TV just after delivery of the same on 28.01.2013 which was purchased on 26.01.2013 and it is also proved that op nos. 1 & 2 never gave any service as required and no doubt one consumer must not have to enjoy the defective and second hand TV on payment of full amount of Rs.43,200/- against a new LG-LED TV, Model No.32LM6200and considering the conduct of the op nos. 1 & 2 and their absence before this Forum to challenge the allegation of the complainant and also considering the document as produced by the complainant it is clear that complainant is a bona fide purchaser of the LG-LED TV at a cost of Rs.43,200/- and that was paid as the said amount was paid by the op no.3 as per application of loan of the complainant.

          Fact remains that op nos. 1 & 2 acted illegally and also adopted unfair trade practice in this regard in selling such second hand and defective TV to the complainant a consumer no doubt.  From the delivery challan dated 26.01.2013 it is clear that warranty was given by the manufacturer and no doubt Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is a dealer of electronics goods and domestic suppliers of LG company.  Then no doubt as per settled principal of law dealer and the manufacturer are principal to principal and both are equally liable for supplying such sort of defective and second hand TV to the complainant and in this regard Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. seller of the goods to the complainant is solely responsible because he was well aware of the fact that he was selling the second hand TV to the complainant suppressing the fact and it was not a brand new one.  But fact remains op no.1 received the entire amount through op no.3 as per loan application of the complainant.  So, it is clear that entire procedure as adopted by the seller (dealer)Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd.tantamounts to unfair trade practice and for which invariably complainant is entitled to get relief against op nos. 1 & 2 because op no.2 is the manufacturer to give warranty but he also did not give any relief to the complainant though warranty period was with the said goods.

          Considering all the above facts and assertions we are convinced to hold that op nos. 1 & 2 adopted unfair trade practice and no doubt they have cheated the complainant though op no.1 received the total amount of Rs.43,200/- from the complainant and in the circumstances the present complaint succeeds against op nos. 1  & 2 in exparte form but after considering the entire materials that under any circumstances op no.3 is not responsible for defective and second hand LG-LED TV which was sold by the op no.1 to the complainant and in fact there is no material against the present op no.3.  So, against op no.3 case was dismissed.  But the present complaint succeeds against the op nos. 1 & 2 in exparte from.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against op nos. 1 & 2 with cost of Rs.10,000/- but same is dismissed against op no.3 without any cost.

          Op nos. 1 is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.43,200/- the total price of the LG-LED TV which was purchased from the op no.1 and further op no.1 shall have to pay the sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for harassment and causing mental pain and agony of the complainant for deceiving the complainant by selling the second hand defective TV in place of new LG-LED TV.

          For adopting unfair trade practice by the op nos. 1 & 2 and to check such sort of mal practice and unfair trade practice each op i.e. op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay punitive damages to the extent of Rs.5,000/- each to this Forum and this punitive damages is imposed against the op nos. 1 & 2 for checking their business by adopting any unfair means to deceive any customer in future.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to comply this order within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay each op i.e. op nos.1 & 2 shall have to pay penal interest @ Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and even then if it is found that op nos. 1 & 2 are reluctant to comply the order and they are disobeying the Forum’s order in that case penal action shall be taken against them for which they shall be imposed further penalty as per provision of Section 27 of C.P. Act 1986.