Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/70

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

King Electrocnics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satwant Singh Saini, Adv.

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                        Consumer Complaint No. : 70 of 22.9.2021

                        Date of decision           :   19.09.2022

 

Jaswinder Singh aged about 51 years son of Balwant Singh, resident of House No.5132, Ward No.16, Sukhrampur Taprian, Ropar, Tehsil & District  Rupnagar  

                                                          ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. King Electronics, Phool Chakar Bazar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its proprietor

2. Havells India Limited, Company Head Lloyd SCO No.12, Ist Floor Madhya Marg, Sector 26-M, Chandigarh, Pin Code 160026 through its Authorize Person/Company Head

3. Registered Office of Lloyd 904, Surya Kiran Building, KG Marg, New Delhi, Pin Code 110001 through its authorize person. 

   ...Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                         SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                         SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. SS Saini, Adv. for complainant

None for OP No.1

Sh. Daljeet Singh, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3

 

ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased LED TV Lloyd on 10.10.2019 of Rs.49,000/- from the OP No.1 and paid the entire amount. The OP No.1 is the dealer of the Lloyd Company and OPs No.2 & 3 are the registered office of the Lloyd Company. At the time of purchasing the LED, the OPs given warranty of LED for three years and issued a warranty card along with invoice. On 20.07.2021, the LED in question has break down a fault and cease to function then the complainant made a complaint on 22.7.2021 but the OPs has not rectify the fault of LED TV of the complainant. The second complaint/request registered on 11.08.2021. Thereafter the OPs had took the LED TV on 25.7.2021 for rectifying the fault on 25.8.2021 and send the letter through company head namely Harjinder Singh. But till today, the fault of the LED is not rectified by the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the Ops:-

1. To replace the LED in question with the new one 
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation 
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       In reply, the OP No.1 has filed written reply stating therein that the complainant had purchased LED from the answering OP and the said LED is covered period of warranty. So the company should either repair the product or exchange with new one.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.       In reply, the OP Nos.2 & 3 have taken preliminary objection; that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the liability of product manufacturer arises in case of any manufacturing defect in the product or defective design of the product or there is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; or the product does not conform to the express warranty; that the complainant has admittedly used to produce uninterruptedly/without any complaints for a period of two years, thus the possibility of any manufacturing defect is ruled out; that the answering OP has never denied service to the complainant and is always ready and willing to resolve the issue subject to warranty conditions; that the answering OP has made every endeavor to give services to the complainant and resolve his issue, but the complainant is not ready to let answering OP resolve the issue; that no manufacturing defect or performance deficiency from the side of the answering OP has been proved, still complainant has prayed for compensation, mental trauma, pain agony and cost of litigation. On merits, it is stated that no manufacturing defect can be alleged or proved in the product by the complainant. The complainant has used the impugned product without any complaint for a period of two years. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.

 3.      The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

5.       It is on the file that complainant purchased the LED from the OP No.1 and after its purchase, the LED in question has break down/occurred fault and cease to function then the complainant made repeated requests to the OPs but they putting the matter on one pretext to the other. Even, the OPs sent a letter dated 17.08.2021, vide which, the Ops informed the complainant that the said model of the LED has come

 

obsolete and no longer available therefore we have given you the option to have an upgraded LED TV with Model No.40US900B of specification MRP of Rs.40,990/- against your said LED Model. It is further informed that you will be required to pay the difference amount of Rs.23,565/- in view of the depreciation policy of the company. From this it is being proved that you are thinking of your mistake then the OP agreed to change/replace the LED in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record Ex.C2 (warranty registration card) and as per terms and condition, replacement of product: Company may provide equivalent model in case of replacement of under warranty if same model is not available”. 

6.     In such circumstances, we feel that the complainant is successful in proving his allegations against the Ops. In view of our above discussion, it is ordered that the OPs. will replace the LED in question. If the OPs is unable to replace the LED in question then refund the amount of Rs.49,900/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. The OPs are further burdened to pay litigation amount to the tune of Rs.11000/- to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply with the said order jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old LED to the OPs. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.  

ANNOUNCED                                                                                   (RANJIT SINGH)

          Dated.19.09.2022                     

                               PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                            

                                                                    (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                         MEMBER